In cases where a forest under state-owned circumstances is indicated as owned by an individual in the public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest based on the former Forest Ordinance, whether such entry is recognized (affirmative)

In the case where an individual is written in the "public notice of the incorporation into a reserved forest" of the "public notice of incorporation into a reserved forest of the Department of Shipbuilding" under the former Forestry Decree (Ordinance No. 10 of the Ministry of Shipbuilding, repealed, Jun. 20, 1911) with respect to forest land which has been state-owned, the right presumption should be given

Article 1 of the former Forest Order (Ordinance No. 10 of the Joseon General Decree, repealed, June 20, 191), Article 9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Order (Ordinance No. 74, Jun. 20, 191), Article 4(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Order (Ordinance No. 73, Aug. 31, 191), Article 4(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Order (repealed, repealed, etc.)

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

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na37277 delivered on October 25, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If there is no specification that the owner in the forest survey report includes the "state" and the address and name of a specific individual in the column, but it is not possible to do so in the remarks column," it is difficult to view that the person recorded as the relative is a person with a relative as the owner of the forest, unless it is otherwise revealed that the entry in the forest survey report does not follow the conditions prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Shipbuilding Forest Investigation Decree. Thus, it is difficult for the person recorded as the relative to be regarded as the owner of the forest in the former owner or his heir's status as the owner of the forest. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below, 94Da13152 delivered on June 24, 1994, 94Da46411 delivered on April 11, 1995, 99Da29799 delivered on May 29, 197.

Therefore, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)