The case holding that it is not possible to believe that the necessary description in the column of the forest specification is not in good faith;

If there is a change in the owner of a forest subject to taxation, the method of arranging the entry of the forest land in the entry of the former owner shall be deleted from the entry of the forest land in the entry of the former owner and the entry of the change in the entry of the new owner shall be omitted from the entry of the entry of the new owner. Therefore, if there is only a change in the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the entry of the forest in the entry of the entry of the entry of the forest is not deleted from the entry of the entry,

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana14388) in the first instance trial

The part against the Defendants in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed (including the conjunctive claim against the defendant 1 in the trial).

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative confirms that ① the Defendants were owned by the Plaintiff on December 22, 1967 by the 5th 7th 7th Doo-si, Seogju-si, Seo-do, Gwangju-gun, and ② Defendant 2 performed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the sale on December 22, 1967, which was the receipt of the Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court Registry No. 7072 on December 22, 1967, and ③ Defendant 1 performed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the sale on January 19, 1967, as the same registry office No. 229 on January 19, 1967.

The court costs are assessed against the defendants. The defendant's conjunctive claim against the defendant 1 for the first time, and the defendant 1 for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership is without merit. The defendant requested that the plaintiff perform the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership due to sale on June 30, 1943.

The same shall apply to the order.

After registration of ownership preservation has been made with respect to this part of the forest land stated in the purport of the purport of the purport of the claim, there is no dispute between the parties. The plaintiff's attorney purchased the forest land originally owned by the defendant from the defendant around June 1943 and completed registration of ownership transfer due to the sale under the plaintiff's name. When the register of the forest land in this case has been destroyed due to June 25, the defendant 1 completed registration of ownership preservation again under the name of the defendant 2, such as the entry in the purport of the purport of the purport of the claim, and therefore, since the registration of ownership preservation is again made under the name of the defendant 1 to the new owner of the forest land, the above change in the name of the new owner of the forest land in the name of the defendant 1 to the new owner of the forest land in the name of the defendant 2 and the new owner of the forest land in the name of the defendant 1 to the extent that the new owner of the forest land in this new forest land in the name of the defendant 1 to the new owner of the forest in this area without dispute.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the entry column stated in the above evidence No. 5 as being legally filled out by a person authorized to prepare, and therefore, the entry section cannot be accepted as it is, and it is insufficient to conclude that the Plaintiff purchased the forest land as seen above from Defendant 1 on the date of the argument only with the testimony of Nonparty 2, 3, and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5 of the party and the original trial witness at the trial and the original trial by the court below, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of the Plaintiff’s allegation even if it is based on all other evidences of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case from defendant 1 on June 1943 shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the original judgment which concluded otherwise is unfair, the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the burden of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yong-Anngngng (Presiding Judge)