The presumption of a lawful change of the name of the owner in the forestry cadastral book under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership;

The change of ownership in the forest register pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership should be presumed to have been duly made at the request of the applicant who has duly issued a guarantee and a written confirmation in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the above Act, unless there is any special reason to the contrary, even though there was no accompanying document required by the Act, and the administrative agency should have handled the affairs. Therefore, the presumption of ownership preservation of this case, which was made before the defendant based on a certified copy of the above forest register, unless there is any proof that the change of ownership was made without attaching a guarantee certificate and a written confirmation under the above Act, or that the said certificate was forged or falsified, or that there was no proof that it was false or false.

Articles 5 and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership;

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1088 Decided October 23, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2047 Decided April 10, 1984

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

Defendant-Appellant No. 50

Msan District Court Decision 85Na41 delivered on August 23, 1985

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on July 31, 1971 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership (Act No. 211) with respect to the forest land in the judgment that was originally unregistered as the plaintiff's father's father, but the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on July 31, 1971 pursuant to the Myang-gun (Act No. 211). However, at the defendant's house from the newspaper to the defendant's house from July 27, 1984, the defendant stated that the plaintiff had obtained the certificate of the plaintiff's assistance division's seal impression from the plaintiff's house and the registration of transfer in the forest of this case was completed on July 1971; the defendant's statement that it was inconsistent with the guarantor's seal affixed to the above guarantee relation; second, the defendant's statement that the registration of the forest of this case was not made on the part of the guarantor's seal affixed to the above registration procedure.

2. However, according to the provisions of Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land, the person who has not registered his rights in the forest land register or the land cadastre, or his agent who has not registered his rights in accordance with the provisions of Articles 5 through 7 of the same Act, may apply for the change of ownership in the forest register or the land cadastre (paragraph (1)), together with a guarantee certificate issued under the provisions of Articles 5 through 7 of the same Act, to the head of the Si/Gun, the head of the Si/Gun or the head of the Si/Gun, and thereby, the person who has held the title in the forest register or the land cadastre or his agent may apply for the registration of ownership preservation together with a certified copy of the forest register or the copy of the land cadastre (Paragraph (2)), Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the guarantee certificate under the provisions of Article 10 of the same Act has been entered in the forest register or the head of the Si/Gun who has received the changed registration number for 10 days.

I think the change of the owner's name in the forest register of this case should be presumed to have been duly made at the request of the applicant who has duly issued a guarantee certificate and a confirmation document in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the above special measures. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the change of the owner's name in the forest register of this case was made without attaching a guarantee certificate and a confirmation document under the above special measures, or that the certificate and confirmation document are not forged or falsified, and that the presumption of the registration of ownership preservation of this case, which was made before the defendant based on a certified copy of the forest register of this case without proof, cannot be said to be broken, on the ground that there was a fact as stated by the court below, and that the change of owner's name in the forest register of this case was made without attaching a guarantee certificate and a confirmation document under the above special measures.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below held that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was made without a letter of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures, and denied its presumption power (as seen above, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was not made by attaching a certificate of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures and a letter of confirmation, and was made by the application accompanied by a certified copy of the forestry book) and held that the registration conforms to the substantive legal relationship, and that the disposition that rendered a decision of the defendant's failure to return the responsibility to the defendant to the defendant who is the registration titleholder, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of preservation of ownership, which was made by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership, and the result of the decision was affected by the burden of proof, which constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed because it is not necessary to enter the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju