A. Whether entry of change of owner in the old forest register is deemed to have been made by the notification of the registry official (affirmative)

B. Whether the forest land entered in the forest land ledger as the property devolving on the state-owned forest land is deemed to be the ownership by Japan as of August 9, 1945 (affirmative)

C. Whether there exists a presumption of the right to a field of forest tax (negative)

D. Whether the presumption of the right to a document drawn up on the lux keeping of a forest and field can be a document proving that the entry of the owner’s column in the forest cadastral book restored by the competent administrative agency for the convenience of administration can be a document that proves the ownership attribution (negative)

A. According to Article 2 of the former Regulations on Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 113 of Aug. 23, 1920) which was applied mutatis mutandis by Article 2 of the former Regulations on Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 113, Apr. 25, 1914), Article 2 of the former Regulations on Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 45, Apr. 25, 1914) provides that “no matter concerning the transfer of ownership shall be registered in the forest register unless the notice of registration management is given.” Thus, the entry of change

B. The forest ledger, which is based on the previous forest ledger before the destruction due to the Korean accidents, was created, wherein the forest to which the nation belongs was recorded, based on which the nationalization decision was made on July 26, 1952. On this basis, the forest to which the pertinent decision was made, entered in the forest to which the pertinent forest belongs, the forest to which the original state belongs, the forest to which the original state belongs, the forest to which the original state belongs, and the national forest ledger was maintained through consultation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. As such, since the maintenance work of the original state-owned forest ledger was carried out through consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the state-owned forest ledger was eventually carried out in the forest ledger before the destruction due to the Korean accidents. Accordingly, it can be said that the capacity of presumption of rights granted to the owner’s column in the above forest ledger was also reached in the national forest ledger. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the forest recorded in the national forest ledger as the property to which it belongs is as of August 9, 1945.

C. The title keeping of forest land is merely a document prepared for the administrative purpose of imposing tax, and thus has no effect on the presumption of right.

(d) The presumption of a right shall also have no effect on a document prepared based on a detailed statement in the forest with no capacity to presume a right;

E. At the time of the enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register, and thus, the forest register restored by the competent administrative authority for administrative convenience cannot be deemed legally restored to the forest register. Therefore, the entry of the owner’s column cannot be the evidence proving the ownership of the ownership.

A. Article 2(b)(d) of the former Land Conservation Regulations (Ordinance No. 45, Apr. 25, 1914); Article 186(e) of the Civil Act; Article 4 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801, Dec. 31, 1975)

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2042 delivered on April 12, 197 (Gong1977, 1004) (Gong197, 1004). (C) Supreme Court Decision 91Da6399 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 874). Supreme Court Decision 80Da766 delivered on July 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 1303) (Gong1303 delivered on July 25, 1989) d. Supreme Court Decision 91Da1189 delivered on August 13, 191 (Gong191, 2329) (Gong1689 delivered on September 29, 196).

Attorney Park Jae-ho, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and two others, who are the legal counsel of the deceased non-party 1

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na29311 delivered on February 14, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case was made in the name of the non-party 2 (the plaintiff's sole heir non-party 1) and that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was lost, since it is hard to find that the non-party 2 was the non-party 3's possession of the forest of this case as of August 9, 1945 under the name of the non-party 3 and the property belonging to the State pursuant to the Civil Code No. 33 and the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and it is hard to find that the non-party 2's possession of the forest of this case was non-party 3's possession of the forest of this case as of August 9, 1945. According to the above evidence No. 2-1, 2 (the identification mark and content of the forest land of this case) and the list No. 7-1, 3, and 97).

2. We examine the reasons stated by the court below in sequence.

(a) first, review the part on the evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 3 of the reasons for paragraph (1);

(1) According to Article 2 of the former Regulations on Land Conservation, which was applied mutatis mutandis by Article 2 of the former Rules on Land Conservation, “the matters concerning the transfer of ownership shall not be registered in the forest register without the notification of the registration management.” Thus, the party members’ established view that entry of ownership change in the old forest register in accordance with the above provisions cannot be deemed to have been made by the notification of the registration public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da2042, Apr. 12, 197).

(2) No. 4, for which the lower court did not dismiss Eul, there was a fact that the head of Gyeonggi-do prepared and sent the Forest Register to which he belongs after receiving an order from the head of Gyeonggi-do to investigate and report the forest land reverted to the time of the U.S. military administration. However, on March 6, 1953, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sent two copies of the Forest Register to the Governor of Gyeonggi-do, and ordered the head of the competent Si and Gun to modify the Forest National Cemetery Register to which he belongs, and the Governor of Gyeonggi-do sent an order to modify the Forest National Cemetery Register to which he belongs, and the Governor of Gyeonggi-do sent it to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. As such, it is sufficient that the head of the competent Gun and the head of the competent Si and Gun sent the Forest National Cemetery Register to which he belongs each market and the head of the Si and the head of the competent Gun to which he belongs, and the Governor of Gyeonggi-do recorded the National Forest Service's official Forest Service's official title and four copies as the Governor's official title of Gyeonggi-do.

On the other hand, the court below rejected No. 5 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry instructed Non-Party 2 to prepare a state-owned forest ledger for each City/Do before the six and 25 incident and to send it to the State-owned forest. Each City/Do shall gather the forest ledger for the State-owned forest at the tax office at that time. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry made a resolution to nationalize the forest land on the basis of the above-owned forest ledger at Busan City Council, and obtained approval from the President on July 26, 1952. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sent the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on July 7, 197, 197, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry recorded the Ministry’s list of state-owned forest land to be reverted to each City/Do and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on July 26, 1952. Accordingly, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry followed the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s new statement to be reverted to the State-owned forest land ledger and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on July 1.

In light of the above facts, the Forest Register, based on the forest land register before destruction due to the Korean War, was created with the forest land register to which the nation belongs, and based on which the decision of nationalization was made on July 26, 1952. The purpose of this decision was to enter the forest land to which the forest land belongs, the forest land ledger to which the ownership belongs, the forest land ledger to which the ownership belongs, the forest land ledger to which the ownership belongs, the national land ledger to which the nationalization belongs, and the national forest ledger to which the state belongs, was maintained through consultation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

(3) If so, the “National Forest Register” consisting of 1, 2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3, which is ultimately based on the forest register before the destruction due to the disaster of 6,25. As such, according to the above legal principles, the presumption of rights granted to the entry in the owner column in the above forest register can be said to have been transferred to the “National Forest Register” as it is. Thus, the forest land indicated in the “National Forest Register” as the property reverted to the “National Forest Register”, which is the property reverted to the “National Forest Register”, shall be deemed to have been owned by Japan as of August 9, 1945.

Therefore, the court below did not err in matters of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the Gu forest register rules and neglecting judgment on probative evidence, in finding that the evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 3 was prepared based on the grounds for verifying the legal relationship of rights.

B. The following part of the lower court’s detailed entry of forest land under paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be deemed as follows.

(1) There is no validity of the presumption of right since the forest tax-related title keeping was merely a document prepared for the administrative purpose of imposing the tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu23278, 23285, Jul. 25, 1989). The part of the court below's statement that the owner cannot be deemed the above non-party 3 at the time of the release of the forest land in this case by the entry of the forest tax-related title keeping table in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this Article is correct even if the reasons therefor are somewhat insufficient.

(2) However, it is natural that the document drawn up on the lux-in-name of forest without the presumption of right also has no effect on the presumption of right (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1189 delivered on August 13, 191). According to the statement of No. 30 that was not rejected by the court below, and the testimony of Non-Party 9 of the court below witness, the public disclosure report of forest restoration (No. 28-2, 10, No. 29-1, No. 29-2) is a document drawn up on the basis of the name of forest, so the court below erred in the misapprehension of the purport that the above public disclosure report of forest restoration was written on December 31, 196, only on the ground that Non-Party 2 was written as the owner of the forest of this case as of December 31, 196 on the date of its preparation.

C. Finally, the court below's reasons for subsection (5) are examined.

(1) At the time of the enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register. Thus, the forest register restored by the competent administrative authority for administrative convenience cannot be deemed legally restored to the forest register. Therefore, the entry of the owner is also an established opinion of party members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da8699, May 22, 1992; 80Da1684, Sept. 9, 1980).

(2) As seen above, the forest land register and the registry book for the forest land of this case were destroyed by the 6.25 incident, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the evidence No. 4, which is the old forest register for the forest land of this case, was restored on December 31, 1966. Thus, the evidence No. 4 is not a legally restored forest register. Thus, even if there is no entry that there was a change in ownership at the time of the sea from the situation against the deceased non-party 2, it cannot be viewed as a material proving the owner of the real estate of this case, in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the court below recognized the forest of this case as the owner at the time of the sea of the forest of this case, and therefore, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the forest land of this case as mentioned above.

3. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Gu Forest Register Rules and omitting judgment on probative evidence; by omitting judgment on the evidence on the basis of preparing a public notice protocol on forest land restoration; by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the statement; by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the statement in the Gu Forest Register, which has not been lawfully restored, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)