The case holding that if the forest and field under the name of the State at the time of the implementation of the forest and field survey project under the Japanese colonial Rule was incorporated into the reserved forest under Article 1 of the Climin Decree No. 278 of the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice of the Joseon-do Do Office, if Gap was publicly notified as owned by the State, it is reasonable to view that the forest and field was transferred as a relative from the State

The case holding that in light of the fact that the special relation of state forest land, such as a person who did not lawfully report the forest land under his own possession at the time when the forest land was under the name of state at the time when the land survey project was conducted under the Japanese colonial rule on August 29, 1942 and thereafter was incorporated into a reserved forest under Article 1 of the Samdo Public Notice of Do governor of the Joseon-do on August 29, 1942, and if it was publicly announced as Gap, it is reasonable to view that Gap was transferred the said forest land as a relative of state, such as a person who did not legally possess the forest land at the time when the situation was under his own possession or a person who lawfully occupies the creamland at the time when the forest was under his own possession, and that a large number of state forest land was actually transferred to the related party under the Japanese Ordinance of Do, as a relative of state Party Gap also.

Article 1 of the Sejong Forest Decree (Ordinance No. 10, repealed, June 20, 191) and Article 1 of the Decree on the Afforestation Special Afforestation (Abolition), Article 1 of the Decree on the Afforestation Special Afforestation (Abolition)

Supreme Court Decision 91Da33025 Delivered on February 11, 1992

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Plaintiffs, Dongba General Law Firm, Attorneys Song Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na7385 delivered on January 28, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the forest of this case was divided into 60 Gecheon-gun No. 60, Gecheon-gun No. 1, Gecheon-gun No. 9, and the forest of this case was originally owned by the defendant state, but the deceased non-party 1, who had been the relative, was transferred from the defendant state in the Japanese colonial era and completed the ownership transfer registration after being transferred from the defendant state in accordance with the Ordinance on the Special Domination, and the deceased's death on February 12, 1959, and the deceased non-party 2, who was the deceased's heir, was solely inherited, but he was the deceased non-party 3 and the non-party 4's wife's wife on February 22, 1989. The court below rejected the above fact that the plaintiff's registration on the ownership transfer of the forest of this case was not completed by the plaintiff 1 and his descendants on the title of the above forest of this case without completing the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff.

However, as decided by the court below, in light of the fact that, at the time of the implementation of the Japanese Forest Survey Project, a situation was under the Defendant’s name at the time of the implementation of the Japanese Forest Survey Project, and thereafter, when being incorporated into the reserved forest stipulated in Article 1 of the Decree on August 29, 1942, which was then announced as owned by the deceased Nonparty 1, the special relative of state forest, such as a person who did not lawfully report his own forest at the time of the situation, or a person who lawfully occupies his forest, etc., was entitled to receive the transfer of the forest under the Japanese Special Do Forest Transfer Ordinance enforced from February 1, 1927, and a large number of state forest was actually transferred to the related parties (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da33025 delivered on February 111, 1992).

The judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)