[1] In a case where a third party, other than the assessment title, is indicated as the owner in the public notice to incorporate the forest under personal name, the ownership of the right

[2] The case holding that even though the person under the circumstances and his/her heir occupied the land in sequence prior to the division, the presumption of possession with autonomy was broken by deeming that the person under the circumstances sold the land until the third party was publicly notified to be included in the reserved forest as the owner

[1] When a record of incorporation into a reserved forest is prepared, an owner shall be examined and entered, and it is deemed that the owner had different knowledge in accordance with the current registry or forest register, and the public notice of incorporation into a reserved forest was given based on such fact that the owner entered a third party who is not the nominal owner in the public notice of incorporation into the reserved forest, it is reasonable to view that the situation was under circumstances regarding the land, but the third party was changed at the time of the public notice of incorporation into the reserved forest and the ownership transfer registration was completed thereafter

[2] Even if the title holder and his/her heir occupied the land before partition, considering the fact that the said land was presumed to have been owned by a third party due to the act of disposal by the title holder at the time of the public announcement of the entry into a reserved forest, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the title holder had already disposed of the said land from the time when the title holder entered the forest inspection report as the owner until the time when a third party was publicly announced to be incorporated into a reserved forest as the owner, and therefore, at the time of the public announcement of the incorporation into a reserved forest, the title holder should be deemed to have rejected the ownership of the third party and did not have the intention to occupy the said land, so the presumption of possession that

[1] Article 1 of the former Climin Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10 of Jun. 20, 1911), Article 9 of the former Climin Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 74 of Jun. 20, 191), Article 4(1)1 of the former Climin Enforcement Procedure (amended by Presidential Decree No. 73 of Aug. 31, 191) / [2] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da57841 delivered on February 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1099) Supreme Court Decision 96Da46293 delivered on June 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2130)

Cho Tae-hee (Attorney Lee Jae-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Lee Jong-deok (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Jin-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2004Gahap24 delivered on July 9, 2004

d. 1, 205

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the primary reason of the restoration of real name in the attached list with respect to each one-half of the real estate in the attached list to the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the primary reason of the restoration of real name in the attached list with respect to

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 1967, 31, 31, 31, 7, 31, 7, 31, 300 m3,000 m3,000 m31,000 m31-1,000 m31,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00

B. On September 8, 1962, the registration of ownership transfer was made with respect to the land before the subdivision. On January 20, 1996, the registration of ownership transfer was made with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") on each land before the subdivision. On January 31, 1996, the registration of ownership transfer was made for the payment in kind in the name of the Republic of Korea on January 31, 1996.

C. Meanwhile, from June 22, 1935 to June 2, 1935, the notice of incorporation into a reserved forest (Evidence 1) was issued by Article 1 of the Forestry Decree, which was enforced by the Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 66 of the Do governor's Official Gazette No. 2540 on the land before subdivision (Fire 10 years), and the notice is written as the owner of Leecheon-gun's Hacheon-gun's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's 66.

D. As the above Lee Jae-in died on July 11, 1950, the defendant independently inherited the deceased Lee Jae-in's property, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the non-party Republic of Korea for the ownership transfer registration of each of the land of this case against the non-party Republic of Korea at the Suwon District Court 2002Gahap2637, and was sentenced in favor of the above court on the ground that each of the land of this case is presumed to have been the ownership of Lee Jae-in at the time of the public announcement of the above reserved forest. The above judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive, under Article 583 of the above court's receipt on January 7, 200, the ownership transfer registration for each of the land of this case was completed on the ground of the restoration of the real name in

E. However, a forest survey document prepared under the Forest Survey Order in the Japanese colonial era is originally written on March 11, 1932 (fire 7 years) by the owner of the land prior to subdivision as the non-party steering line, and the date of the report or notification.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land prior to subdivision was under the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s pilot line, and was managed by any person on the ground, and the registration of ownership was made illegally in the future by using the fact that the public records were destroyed by war, etc. despite the absence of the fact that no one has disposed of, and thereafter, the land prior to subdivision was subject to a favorable judgment by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant sold the land prior to subdivision to a person who is the owner of the farm Council in the Dongcheon-Eup. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of the real name with respect to one half of the shares in the name of the Defendant among each land of this case to the Plaintiff who is in the status of the owner of the property of the pilot line.

(b) Markets:

First of all, the fact that the net steering line was determined by the land before division at the time of the Forest Investigation Ordinance is as seen earlier.

However, considering the procedure of incorporating forest into a reserved forest as of June 20, 1935 when the notice of incorporation into a reserved forest was made, Article 1 of the Clime Decree (No. 10 of the Clime Decree No. 10 of Jun. 20, 191) provides that "the Climin may include the three forests in a reserved forest if it is deemed necessary for national security, prevention of harm, development of water sources, purpose of navigation, public hygiene, fish (referring to the inducement and proliferation of fish; hereinafter the same shall apply) or wind," "the Enforcement Rule of Clime (No. 74 of the Climin Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of June 20, 191)" (including the area of the reserved forest to be incorporated into a reserved forest and announced in the Climinian Official Gazette, "No. 74 of the Climine Ordinance of the Republic of Korea" is incorporated into a reserved forest, "No. 1 of the Yellow Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport" (hereinafter referred to be incorporated Decree).

Therefore, when preparing a protocol for incorporation into a reserved forest as above, the owner is required to investigate and enter the same, and it is believed that the owner was different from the entry in the current registry or forest register (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da57841, Feb. 25, 1994, etc.). As seen earlier, considering the fact that the owner was entered in the public notice for incorporation into a reserved forest as well as the fact that the above owner was entered in the public notice for incorporation into the reserved forest, it is reasonable to view that the owner was changed from the type of land at the time of the public notice for incorporation into the above reserved forest, and that the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57841, Feb. 25, 1994).

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim under the premise that each of the lands of this case still remains in the control line is without merit.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From March 2, 1932, 1932, which was entered as the owner of the land before subdivision in the forest survey report, the steering vessel has occupied the above land while managing a tombstone on the ground. Since the Plaintiff died on May 12, 1939, and the Plaintiff inherited the above land and occupied and managed it in peace and openly for twenty or more years up to the present day, it was completed on March 2, 1952 after the lapse of twenty years from the date the steering vessel commenced possession. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for one-half of each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription.

(b) Markets:

Even if a pilot line, a title holder, and the plaintiff, who is his/her property heir, has occupied the land before partition, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the land was presumed to have been owned as a net species due to the act of disposal, etc. of the pilot line at the time of the public announcement of incorporation into a reserved forest, and the process of succession to possession as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the pilot line had already disposed of the land from March 11, 1932, which was indicated as the owner in the forest inspection report, until June 22, 1935, when the management line was included and publicly notified as the owner, and therefore, at the time of the public announcement of incorporation into the reserved forest, it should be deemed that the owner did not have any intention to reject the ownership of others and that the plaintiff had no intention to possess it. Furthermore, the presumption of possession with the intention to own was broken, and as long as the plaintiff did not express his/her intention to own it to the owner or prove that he/she had possession with a new title.

Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff, which is premised on the possession of each land of this case by the steering vessel and the plaintiff, is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition. (Attachment omitted): The list of real estate is omitted.

Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge)