[1] In a case where the owner of a forest survey report states "state" and the owner of the forest survey report's name and address of a specific individual in the column, but the specific person's name and address are in the blank space, and such name is entered in the forest survey report's forest land, whether the person who is recorded as the relative can be deemed as being in the situation of the forest land (negative)

[2] The presumption of the entry of the owner in the forest survey report

[3] The case holding that the forest land is highly likely to have been owned by A at the time of the forest land survey project, in case where Gap was a forest land survey report and forest land survey report prepared at the time of the forest land survey project and the forest land survey report are the state-owned land survey and the land survey report prepared at the time of the forest land survey project are merely the simple relation, but Gap was entered as the owner in the forest land cadastral survey report compiled in accordance with the former shipbuilding Erosion Control Work Ordinance, and Gap's descendants were managed

[1] According to the relevant provisions of the former Joseon Forest Survey Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5 of May 1, 1918), the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree (Abolition No. 38 of May 1, 1918, repealed), and the same Order Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 59 of Nov. 26, 1918, repealed), the owner column of the forest survey report prepared at the time the forest survey project was entered as “the State” and the relative column was entered as “the owner column of the forest survey report prepared at the time the forest survey project was recorded as “the State,” but the forest land survey report was made as a national relative, and the forest land survey report was made as well as the forest land survey report made after the survey was made as a national relative, and barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the relative was the owner of the forest concerned.

[2] A person who is registered as an owner in the forest survey report shall not be readily determined that his ownership is determined by the forest survey report through the forest survey. However, unless there is any counter-proof such as the change of the situation by the ruling, it shall be presumed that the forest is the owner of the forest and its circumstance is determined.

[3] According to the fact that Gap is a State-owned forest survey document and land cadastral survey record prepared at the time of the survey of forest land and land area Gap is a party to the above survey, but Gap is a forest land register compiled after the survey of forest land and land area Gap is stated as Gap's owner, and later Gap's descendants manage forest land within the forest area, the former shipbuilding Work Decree (Ordinance No. 17 of August 25, 193, repealed, No. 11, 193) concerning the procedure for the execution of land erosion control work at the time when the above land cadastral survey record was prepared, and the former Enforcement Rule of the same Decree (Ordinance No. 11, 1934, No. 120, 1934, 120, 1934, 120, 120, 500, 1000, 100, 100, 100, 10,000, 10,000, 1,00, 2,

[1] Articles 3, 10, 10, 1, and 9 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land into Shipbuilding (Ordinance No. 5, repealed, May 1, 1918), Articles 27, 51, 77, and 79 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land (Ordinance No. 38, May 1, 1918), Article 1 and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Forestry into Shipbuilding (Ordinance No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918), Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land into Shipbuilding (Ordinance No. 186, May 1, 1918), Article 18 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land into Shipbuilding (Ordinance No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918), Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Erosion Control of Land, etc. (Ordinance No. 158, May 17, 197)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da38896 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3401), Supreme Court Decision 98Da18216 delivered on September 8, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2411), Supreme Court Decision 9Da18619 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 20399) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da30037 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3075), Supreme Court Decision 93Da6091 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 310, 398Da164979 delivered on July 16, 199, Supreme Court Decision 97Da19849 delivered on July 196, 196

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na36725 delivered on June 2, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the former Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5, May 1, 1918), the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 38, May 1, 1918) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918), “the owner column of the forest survey report prepared at the time of the forest survey project” is indicated as “the State” and the relative column includes the specific individual’s name and address, but the specific person’s name and address are as a disturbance. In a case where the forest land survey report was made as a national relative, and the forest land survey report was made as a national relative, and the forest survey report was made as a national relative, and the forest survey report was made as a national relative, and it cannot be deemed that the related party was found to have received the status of the forest as the owner of the forest concerned, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da19869, Sept. 16, 198).

In this case, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below and the records, the forest of this case is originally divided into 6 parts and 5 parts and 6 parts and 6 parts and 5 parts and 6 areas of forests and fields (hereinafter “the forest of this case before the division”). The forest of this case was divided into the forest survey document and forest land survey map prepared at the time of the forest survey project, and the non-party, the plaintiffs, the fleet of this case, merely entered the land as a mere relative (the date of the report or notification on the forest survey document, December 15, 1918) (the date of the report or notification on the forest survey document, December 15, 1918). However, the non-party, the land of this case, the land of this case, the lot number, the size of construction, the size of the forest of this case, the forest of this case or the non-party, the land owner or the non-party, the land owner of this case, which was divided into 16 parts and 4 areas of this case.

According to Article 2 of the Decree on the Erosion Control Work (Ordinance No. 17 of August 25, 193, repeal) for the land which was executed by the Japanese governor shall be designated. Erosion Control Work may be executed by the State with a license of the Japanese governor. Erosion Control Work may be executed by the Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Japanese governor General or Article 2. The owners or persons concerned of land designated by the Japanese governor under the provisions of Article 2 shall not refuse to execute the same plan for the construction of forests and fields by the Japanese governor (the Japanese governor shall prepare a plan for the construction of forests and fields for rent No. 1) for the following reasons: the owners or persons concerned of land for which the Japanese governor entered the land for rent No. 200, the Japanese governor shall prepare a plan for the construction of forests and fields No. 10, the Japanese governor's own land for the purpose of the construction of forests and fields No. 2, the Japanese governor's own land for the purpose of the construction of forests and fields No. 3.

Nevertheless, the court below held that even if the non-party is registered as the owner of the forest land before the division of this case in the above forest land cadastral survey report prepared after the completion of the above forest land survey report, it is merely a document prepared for the purpose of erosion control work, and it is difficult to view the non-party as the owner of the forest land before the division of this case. The non-party is merely a mere relative of the forest land before the division of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged. The measures maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiffs' primary claim are in violation of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)