(a) Whether the forest land entered in the forest land ledger as property devolving on the state owned by Japan on August 9, 1945 is deemed to be Japanese ownership;

B. Probative value of a copy of the statement on investigation records

A. The forest ledger, based on the previous forest ledger before the destruction due to the six and twenty-5 incident, in which the forest for national origin was created, and based on which the nationalization was made on July 26, 1952. The forest for national origin was recorded in the forest ledger, the forest for national origin, the forest for national origin, the forest ledger for national origin determination, and the forest for national origin. Since the maintenance work of the forest for national origin determination was carried out through consultation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the national forest ledger was based on the forest ledger before the destruction due to the 6 and twenty-5 incident. Accordingly, the presumption of rights granted in the owner column in the above forest ledger may be deemed to have been reached in the forest ledger before the destruction. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the forest recorded in the national forest ledger as the property for national origin is owned by Japan as of August 9, 194.

B. A copy of the statement on the investigation record shall be admissible if the other party affixed to the statement at the date of pleading, and if the other party affixed to the statement at the time of pleading and the denial of existence of the original, and there is no trace of the original submitted thereafter.

A. Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da12216 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2275)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na28309 delivered on January 25, 1995

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

6.25 Incident created a forest ledger, based on which nationalization was made on July 26, 1952, stating the forest land reverted to the nation, which was based on which the ruling was made. The entry of the forest land to which it belongs, the forest land ledger, the forest land ledger to which it belongs, the forest land ledger to which it belongs, and the forest land ledger to which it is determined nationalization was made through consultation with the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. As such, the maintenance work of the forest ledger to which it is determined nationalization was performed through consultation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, it can be said that the state forest ledger was carried out in the forest ledger before it was destroyed due to June 25 incident. Accordingly, the presumption of rights granted to the owner column in the above forest ledger was also established in the forest ledger to which it belongs. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the non-party’s state property reverted to the national forest ledger was owned by Japan as of August 9, 1945 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da162165, Feb.26, 194).

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which accepted the defendant's assertion that the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in the name of the defendant was effective in accordance with the substantive legal relationship is just, and there is no reason to argue that the above Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 had been prepared by a supporting document that can confirm the legal relationship (However, according to the records, Eul evidence No. 9-4, as cited by the court below, as a copy of the investigation record, approved the plaintiffs as a copy of the statement No. 9-2 as the third day for pleading of the court below, and approved it as a denial of the existence of the land and the original copy, and it is obvious that the original is not admissible since there is no trace that the original is submitted, it is obvious that the court below considered it as a fact-finding material, but it is sufficient to recognize the fact of acquisition of the defendant's ownership only by the statement No. 1-1 and 2 of the above evidence No. 1-2 in light of the legal principles as seen above.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)