(a) Estimated history of registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership;

(b) Purport of Article 3 of the same Act;

(a) Any registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, effective) shall be presumed to be a valid registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship unless it is alleged that the certificate of guarantee and written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership was falsely prepared or forged, or that the registration was not duly made for any other reason under the same Act.

B. Article 3 of the same Act does not stipulate that only the forest actually transferred by a juristic act before January 1, 1960 shall be registered pursuant to the same Act, but also the purport of the same Act is that the forest actually transferred by a juristic act at the time of enforcement of the same Act but has not yet been registered as a whole or has not yet been registered as a preservation of ownership may be registered pursuant to the same Act.

(a) Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, invalidation), Article 3 of the same Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 86Da493 delivered on Nov. 25, 1986 (Gong1987,98) (Gong1991,1502). Supreme Court Decision 92Da31804 delivered on Apr. 26, 1991 (Gong1993,724 delivered on Jan. 19, 1993), Supreme Court Decision 93Da1381 delivered on Jul. 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2266). (b) Supreme Court Order 82Ma109 delivered on Jun. 12, 1982 (Gong1982,803).

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na28619 delivered on June 4, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on each of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that registration was null and void because non-party 1 was made under his own name in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership since non-party 1 was not given a donation or purchase of the forest land No. 1 or No. 2, and that registration was not made under the same Act because non-party 1 obtained a false confirmation document and a certification certificate despite the absence of the fact that he was given a donation or purchase of the forest land No. 1 or No. 2, and that registration was made under the same Act, it shall be presumed to be a valid registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship unless it is proved that the certificate of guarantee and certification under the same Act were prepared or forged, or that registration was not made lawfully in accordance with the same Act. The court below rejected the judgment of the court below that it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's assertion that the above non-party 1 was born after the death of the deceased non-party 2, the owner of the forest land of this case, and that the above non-party 1 was not guilty.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

Article 3 (A) of the same Act does not stipulate that only those actually transferred by a juristic act prior to January 1, 1960, such as the theory of lawsuit, can be registered pursuant to the relevant Act, but also for the forest land, the registration of ownership transfer of which was actually transferred due to a juristic act at the time when the Act was enforced, or the registration of ownership preservation has not been made, shall be made pursuant to the relevant Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 82Ma109, Jun. 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 86Hun-Ma493, Nov. 25, 1986). Therefore, the argument against the judgment of the court below against the contrary Opinion cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)