Whether there is a presumption of right in the owner column of the forest land register restored by administrative agencies for administrative convenience at the time of enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (negative)

At the time of the enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the forest register restored by the competent administrative authority for administrative convenience has been legally restored to the forest register. Therefore, the entry of the owner’s column cannot be the evidence proving the ownership of the ownership.

Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act; Article 4 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of December 31, 1975)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Go Young-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gangnam Lung Pung Pung Pung Pung (Attorneys Shin Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 94Na40382 delivered on December 15, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the court below's determination that the defendant has occupied the remaining parts of the forest of this case with the intention of ownership for not less than 20 years, excluding the part indicated in the annexed drawing of the judgment below, while the defendant has no evidence to acknowledge that he occupied the above part of the drawing from March 3, 1963, is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to possession of forest, the misapprehension of legal principles as to possession of forest, the acquisition by prescription, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the misunderstanding of facts. The arguments are without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the evidences of the trial, and found that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the forest of this case completed pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Restoration of and Preservation for Land Restoration within Diplomatic Areas (Act No. 3627) was null and void a year, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the forest of this case was made through the owner's restoration registration in accordance with the false guarantee certificate, and the forest of this case is the same clan whose name was changed among the non-party shill shill shills and the defendant's clans. The forest of this case was purchased from the owner of the clan in the Japanese clan, and was not completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant clan in accordance with the above special measures for convenience, the defendant's clan was registered as the forest of this case as the forest of this case, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's purchase of the forest of this case was not legitimate in the above guarantee form.

3. At the time of enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the forest was legally restored to the original forest register that was restored for administrative convenience by the competent administrative authority in the original forest register (it is no more reasonable ground for the owner to restore it by the report of the general public and to enter the owner in accordance with the details of the report). Therefore, the owner’s entry cannot be the evidence proving ownership attribution (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da12216, Jun. 26, 1992). Thus, as alleged in the family litigation theory, even if the non-party old forest register was registered with the owner’s restoration report under the name of the non-party 1 in the original forest register which was pointed out in the year 1963, such materials alone cannot be readily concluded that the forest of this case was owned by the above non-party 1. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning restoration of the original judgment.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)