In a case where the owner of neighboring land is the same at the time of the assessment under the former Shipbuilding Decree, whether the boundary indicated by the boundary of one parcel in the forestry map can be deemed to have been determined due to the above circumstances (negative)

According to the "survey report on the land system and the land system of a shipbuilding" issued by the Joseon General Co., Ltd. in around 1920, the boundary (the same as the "grain in the land survey") subject to the circumstances refers to the boundary between the land and the land owned by another person, and the landowner refers to the boundary between the other land and the land, and the region line indicating the limit between the limit of one parcel belonging to the same prop and the one parcel and the one where the survey is conducted and the one where the survey is not conducted is not the subject of the circumstances. Thus, even if the boundary is indicated as one parcel in the forestry map, if the owner of the adjacent land at the time of the situation is the same, the boundary cannot be deemed to be determined by the circumstances.

Articles 1, 8, 15, and 20 of the former Decree on the Survey of Forest Land (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918), 1, 8, 15, and 20

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeongsung, Attorneys Y Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 7 others (Law Firm Youngjin, Attorneys Jeong Yong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Appointed Party)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2004Na6318 Decided January 26, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the former Decree on the Survey of Forest Land (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918), the survey and survey of forest shall be conducted by the Ordinance on the Survey of Forest Land except for those under the Decree on the Survey of Land (Article 1); the Do governor shall assess the forest owner and its boundaries (Article 8); the rights of forest owners are determined by the final and conclusive judgment or adjudication of the circumstances (Article 15); and the shipbuilding General may apply mutatis mutandis to all or part of the Ordinance on the Survey of Forest Land to the land other than those opened within the forest and opened within the forest and was not investigated and surveyed under the Ordinance on the Survey of Land (Article 20). However, according to the “the Land Survey and Land Survey System” issued by the Joseon General Department around 1920, the boundary (the same as the “Graininin in the survey of land”) indicating the relation between the land owned by another person and another person, and the boundary of the land between the land and the neighboring land and the boundary of the land, even if the land is not the same as the land owner’s boundary.

According to the records, under the control of the court below, on November 12, 1916, 2016, 14 mountain land was registered in the forestry cadastral map and forestry map on January 6, 1919, 14 mountain village again on the ground of the completion of reclamation work on January 6, 1919, and 14 mountainous village was registered in the forestry cadastral map and forestry map, and even on February 1, 1925, the boundary of 15 mountain village area was not exempt from taxation pursuant to Article 16 of the Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “san 15 forest”) and the boundary of 15 mountain village area was not registered in the forestry cadastral map and 14 mountainous village area (hereinafter referred to as “san 14 mountain village area”). The boundary of 15 mountainous village area and 15 mountainous village area was not registered differently from the forest land cadastral map on March 16, 1914, and the forest and mountainous village area was transferred to 145 mountainous village area (hereinafter referred to “15 mountainous village area”).

In the same way, the boundary of the land indicated in the forestry map cannot be said to have been determined by the circumstances according to the forest survey, since the owner at the time of the above situation was connected with the forest land in mountain 15.

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine the boundaries of the forest of this case based on the current cadastral map on the ground that the boundary and area of the forestry map according to the forest surveying business in the Japanese colonial era is not absolute, unlike the determination of the owner due to the circumstances, and that in the case where the land exempt from taxation is registered in the land cadastre and the cadastral map according to the report by the landowner or the investigation by the State, the current state of the land shall be newly surveyed. In full view of the above, the court below determined that it is reasonable to determine the boundaries of the forest of this case based on the current cadastral map on the ground that it is difficult to view that the land which is registered in the cadastral map was delayed, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the circumstances

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)