A. The binding force of the judgment reversed and remanded;

(b) Estimated history and burden of proof of registration of preservation of ownership made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Forest Ownership (No. 211);

A. The court to which the case was remanded from the Re-appeal Court shall be bound by the court of final appeal, unless new arguments and evidence are presented during the trial process after remanding the case, and changes in the facts constituting the basis of continuous judgment occur, as to the factual and legal judgment, which was based on the grounds of reversal.

B. According to Article 10 (Invalidation of Act No. 211) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest and Forest Ownership, a person who has failed to register unregistered forest land from a person on the forestry register or a person on the land cadastre, or his agent, shall obtain a registration of preservation of ownership with a copy of the certificate of guarantee issued under Articles 5 through 7 of the same Act and a written confirmation attached thereto, and shall obtain a registration of preservation of ownership with a copy of the certificate attached thereto. Thus, registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is completed in accordance with legitimate procedures prescribed under the same Act, and shall be presumed to be in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, a person who intends to seek a cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, which has been made under the Act on Special Measures, shall assert and prove that registration of preservation of ownership is not lawfully made under the Act on Special Measures, which is a document attached to the change of the name in the forest register, or for any other reason, and shall prove that the registration has been made unlawful and shall be consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

A. Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 106(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Law No. 2111) and Article 186 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Order 82Nu73 Decided November 8, 1983, 82Nu73 Decided January 30, 1987 and 86No2 Decided October 13, 1987, and 86Da2928 Decided October 13, 1987

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant No. 50

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1949 Decided March 25, 1986

Msan District Court Decision 86Na146 delivered on May 15, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal (the supplementary appellate brief is filed after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, so that the supplementary appellate brief may supplement the grounds of appeal) are examined.

(1) The court to which the case was remanded from the Re-appeal Court shall be bound by the court of final appeal, unless new arguments and evidences have been presented during the trial process after remanding the case and changes have occurred in facts which form the basis of continuous judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu73, Nov. 8, 1983; Supreme Court Order 86No. 1.30, Jan. 30, 1987; 86-2, etc.). According to the reasoning of the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the registration of preservation of ownership under Article 2111 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership, unless it proves that the certificate of guarantee or confirmation was forged, or that the registration was not made in accordance with due process, and it is presumed that the registration was consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and there is no further error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above evidence and the evidence newly examined after remand, and there is no further error in the evidence as to acknowledge Gap evidence and evidence No. 13131 of the above.

(2) According to Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land, the acquisitor or his agent who has failed to register the unregistered forest with the right from the developer in the forestry cadastral book or land cadastral book shall report the change in the name of the forest cadastral book, etc. with a certificate issued under Articles 5 through 7 of the said Act and a certified copy of the certificate attached thereto, and the registration of ownership preservation under the said special measures shall be presumed to be in accordance with the substantive legal relationship as completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the said Act. The person who intends to file a lawsuit for the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation under the said special measures shall be presumed to be in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. The court below's determination that the registration of ownership preservation under the said special measures was not legitimate under the premise that the registration of ownership preservation was not made under the said special measures, which is a document attached to the change in the name of the developer in the forest cadastral book, or for any other reason, and that the registration was made under the premise that it was not legitimate under the said special measures, and that there was no error in law by the plaintiff's legal relationship of ownership.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)