The legitimacy of presumption that the owner’s column for the forest survey report under the Decree on the Forestry and Land Survey for the Republic of Korea was written as the State, but the relative was written as the State’s ownership (negative)

Article 10 of the Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land provides that since Article 10 of the said Decree did not make a cadastral report in accordance with subparagraph 1 of the said Act and Article 19 of the Forestry Act, the state-owned forest land should be considered as the ownership of the former owner or his heir. Thus, the forest land under the said Ordinance was written as the "State" in the column for the owner of the forest land under the said Ordinance. However, if the related party's name is stated in the forest land investigation book, it is difficult to presume that the forest land in this case was state-owned during the process of assessing the boundary between the owner and the forest, and it is more likely that the related party's ownership could be considered as a state-owned forest. However, the court below held that the forest land in this case should be presumed as the state-owned forest land for the mere reason that it was written as state-owned

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 10 of the Joseon Forest Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918) and Article 19 of the Afforestation Act (No. 1 of January 21, 1912)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Attorney Kim Yong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 88Na1958 delivered on July 14, 1989

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division by destroying the part against the plaintiff as to the main claim among the judgment below.

We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the following facts: (a) on October 30, 1917, the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed as of June 24, 1986 with respect to the forest of this case under the name of the defendant as of June 24, 1986; and (b) on October 30, 1917, the forest of this case was owned by the non-party, the decedent of the plaintiffs, and the defendant, without any title, changed the name of the owner on the forest of this case into the name of the defendant and completed registration of preservation of ownership under the name of the defendant as of October 30, 1987; (c) on the contrary evidence of this city, the court below found that the registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case under the name of the defendant should be cancelled as of October 30, 1917 under the former Land Investigation Ordinance, and found the fact that the forest of this case was registered as the owner of the forest of this case under the name of this case.

However, according to the records, evidence adopted by the court below for the recognition of the facts in the judgment below, Eul evidence No. 1 is composed of "original survey report on forest land", Eul evidence No. 1-2 is composed of "forest survey report", and especially "written" is corrected as "written", and Eul evidence No. 1-3 is composed of "land survey", and the related party name column is written as "land survey", "land survey", and its report or notification date is hard to be prepared as part of the land survey on October 30, 197. On the other hand, under Article 2, 4, 9, 17, 31, 17, 18, 17, 198, 17, 17, and 198, 30, 17, 19, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1.

In addition, the evidence Nos. 2-2 of the above No. 1-2 is the old forest register restored to March 31, 1952, and the fact-finding was corrected from the above "Y" to the "State", but this is not the document prepared at the time when the situation was corrected, as determined by the court below, but the correction was made to the owner's column according to the report as determined by the court below, and the correction was made after the fact-finding 1-1, 2, and 3 of the above No. 1-2 of the above No. 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, and 3 of the above No. 1-3 of the above No. 1-2, the credibility thereof is doubtful, and there is no doubt about the credibility thereof, and the part of the evidence No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the above facts-finding is not sufficient to readily conclude that the plaintiff's testimony was destroyed under the name of the defendant's forest under the name of the defendant state as the above 2-appellant.

In contrast, the court below's rejection of this case's No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 2 were 8 owner of the forest land and thus, it was found that the above-mentioned No. 1 and No. 1 were changed to the 1 and no. 8 owner of the forest land. Thus, the court below's determination that the above-mentioned No. 1 and No. 2 were the owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 1 were the owner of the forest and no. 3 owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 1 were the owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 13 owner of the forest and no. 13 owner of the forest and no. 18 owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 13 owner of the forest and no. 9 owner of the forest and no. 18 owner of the forest and no.

In conclusion, the court below rejected the evidence that conforms to the plaintiffs' assertion, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion as to the preparation process of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-3 without sufficient deliberation or sufficient evidence value. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to land investigation order and forest investigation order, and misjudgments the facts against the rules of evidence. If the judgment of the court below is not reversed, it goes against the principle of justice and equity. Thus, it is reasonable to point out this point as the ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal as to the conjunctive claim, we reverse the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff as to the main claim and remand the case to the Daegu District Court Panel Division which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)