The case holding that a person whose name is indicated on the forest land as a person with an overall title attached to the forest land shall be a special relative to the state forest which was not reported pursuant to Article 19 of the Afforestation (No. 21, 1908, repealed) and is highly likely to have been transferred from the Dogdo governor to the relevant forest land.

A person whose name is entered in the forest land map with an overall title attached to the forest land shall be a special relative to the state forest which is not reported pursuant to Article 19 of the Clim Act (No. 21, 1908, repealed), and is highly likely to have been transferred from the Dogdo governor to the relevant forest land.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the Cforest Act (repealed by Act No. 1, 1908), Article 3 of the C forest Survey Decree, Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the C forest Survey Decree, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree, Article 1 and Article 2 of the C forest Transfer Decree of the C forest of the Republic of Korea (repealed by Act No. 1, 1926, Apr. 5, 1926)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Feb. 25, 1992, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Dal-sik

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 93Na1100 delivered on November 4, 1993

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 of the Shipbuilding Decree (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918) provides that the owner of a forest shall report to the head of a Myeon, the name or address of which was owned by the owner of the forest within the period prescribed by the Do. The owner of the forest shall make a report in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph. Under the provisions of subparagraph 2 of Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Act (Ordinance No. 38 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1918) that the owner of the forest shall be deemed to have been entitled to have been entitled to have been entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to have been entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to be entitled to the owner.

The court below rejected the evidence that the plaintiffs received the forest land of this case from the Joseon General, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion on the ground that it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of transfer, and that there is no evidence otherwise.

However, in the above evidence No. 5, where the name of the non-party, the deceased deceased person, who is the deceased person, is indicated as the title, the above statement is indicated as the relation of the forest of this case. According to the above evidence No. 5 and the evidence No. 13, which was not rejected by the court below, the above non-party's name is indicated as the title of the forest of this case as in the forest of this case, even in the same 6 forest of this case located adjacent to the forest of this case on the forest of this case, and it can be identified that the above non-party was transferred the above 6 forest of this case from the Japanese governor as a special relation, and it is difficult to view that the above non-party was transferred the forest of this case only with the statement of the above 6 forest of this case, without considering what contents had been connected to the forest of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the name of the forest of this case as stated in

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)