Whether the ownership of property owned by Ri under the name of Ri, which is an administrative district, and whether Ri, which is an administrative district, becomes an agency belonging to the Myeon or Gun, and whether the above property is changed as owned by Myeon or Gun (negative)

If the residents living in this administrative district form a community consisting of all residents for the sake of the common convenience and common welfare of the residents, and use the name of the administrative district, and own a certain property on the public register, such a community as a non-corporate group shall not change the property owned by the residents, on the ground that the property belongs to the collective ownership of the residents and that the property belongs to the Myeon or Gun affiliated with the local government, which is a local government, according to the enforcement of the Local Autonomy Act.

Article 275 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4285Da162 delivered on April 21, 1953, 4289Da617 delivered on February 6, 1958, and 64Da1768 delivered on February 9, 1965

Attorney Park Nam-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na48019 delivered on February 16, 1990

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the situation under the Forestry Investigation Ordinance was taken place on September 1, 191 with respect to 362 woodland 54 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun-gun-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si, and that the land of this case was divided into 362 woodland 54 square meters in the above Suwon-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, and acquired the ownership of the above woodland 544 square meters-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si.

2. However, in a case where a resident living in a Ri's administrative district constitutes a community consisting of all residents for the sake of the common convenience of the residents and their common welfare, and used the name of an administrative district and owned a certain property in the public record under the name of the public record, such a community, as a non-corporate group, belongs to the collective ownership of the residents, and it does not change the property owned by the residents to the Myeon or Gun on the ground that the non-corporate group belongs to the collective ownership of the residents, and the administrative district became an affiliated organization of the Myeon or Gun, a local government following the enforcement of the Local Autonomy Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4286Sang162, Apr. 21, 1953; 4289Sang617, Feb. 6, 1958; 64Da1768, Feb. 9, 196

As determined by the court below, if the forest land of this case was assessed into the name of several parties, the forest land of this case is not a simple administrative district, but a non-corporate body composed of residents within the administrative district, and it seems that the community using the same name as the administrative district refers to the community of residents using the same name. Thus, the forest land of this case is not changed to the ownership of the residents within several houses which constitute the above non-corporate body and belongs to the collective ownership of the residents within several houses and belongs to the superior administrative district of several houses or Gwangju military forces.

Therefore, if the plaintiff is the same zone as the name holder of the situation at the time of the above forest situation and can be seen as the same community as the community where the residents of the district at that time are the residents of the district, the forest of this case shall be deemed to belong to the collective ownership of the residents constituting the plaintiff. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated more on this point. In this case, the purport of the plaintiff's seeking confirmation of the ownership of the forest of this case is to seek confirmation of the ownership of the plaintiff, and the purport of the plaintiff's seeking confirmation of the ownership of the forest of this case is to be the purport of seeking the

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the owner of a non-corporate body as a resident community, and in the incomplete hearing and incomplete hearing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)