The case holding that even if the forest fraternity has commenced possession of the forest land in order to implement the afforestation project for the forest land in accordance with the forest management project plan of a forestry cooperative, it shall not be regarded as an independent possession due to the nature of the title

The case holding that even if the forest fraternity commenced possession of forest land for the above afforestation project, it cannot be regarded as possession autonomously in the nature of title, since the afforestation project was entrusted by the forest owner in the nature of the afforestation project, although there was a fact that the forest has been maintained and managed after the afforestation project was implemented in the forest fraternity in accordance with the afforestation project plan of the forest association.

Article 197(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Shin Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 89Na1649 delivered on November 1, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below denied the presumption of lawfulness of each of the above registrations by recognizing the fact that the forest land of this case was purchased from both the plaintiffs or its fleets in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111) and denying the presumption of legitimateness of each of the above registrations, and the defendant's defense that each of the above registrations is unlawful in the procedure, but it is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, is dismissed for the following reasons.

In other words, as to the fact that the forest of this case was owned and managed prior to the hundred years from the Defendant’s transfer, the forest of this case was owned and managed by the Defendant’s transfer, and that the trust was under the name of the Plaintiffs, which had been maintained in the village for convenience at the time of the forest situation, there is no evidence sufficient to acknowledge it, and as to the Defendant’s transfer of the prescriptive prescription, there was a fact that the Defendant performed the afforestation project of this case in accordance with the Gesung-gun Forestry Cooperatives Forest Association’s afforestation project plan around 1967 from the Defendant’s forest area and thereafter maintained and managed the forest of this case, but the said afforestation project was entrusted by the forest owner with growing, and thus, even if the Defendant started possession of the forest of this case for the forest of this case, it cannot be deemed as the possession of the forest of this case by nature of the title, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant occupied the forest of this case

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and evidence cooking relation as stated in its decision is just in the process of rejecting the defendant's defense, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law in misconception of facts by failing to comply with the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. In addition, the court below's decision that has denied the validity of the registration made in the name of the defendant in the facts recognized by the court below is just and there is

In addition, according to the records, since the defendant's name is a monthly forest zone and it can be seen that it is a juristic person with registration, the defendant has the right ability as well as the right ability in the lawsuit, and the court below recognizes the defendant's ability to make a decision on the merits immediately after it recognizes the defendant's ability to do so, so the court below cannot have any deliberation on this point. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)