(a) shall not have the effect of acquiring ownership in respect of the possessor unless the possessor wishes to hold it in light of the nature of the title;

(b) The forest land ownership in cases where the Japanese owner purchased the forest land from August 9, 1945, but the name of Japanese owner is entered in the register and the forest land register;

The effect of the acquisition of ownership shall not accrue to the possessor in the absence of the intention of the possessor due to the nature of the title.

Article 2 of the Military Affairs Act No. 33

Japanese Industrial Co., Ltd.

Korea

Suwon support in the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na549 delivered on July 2, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the representative director of the Plaintiff Company is examined.

If comprehensive review is conducted in accordance with the records of evidence cited by the original judgment, the facts established in the original judgment can be recognized. Each witness's testimony cited in the debate does not conflict with the original judgment's recognition, and cannot be deemed to be erroneous because it did not make any judgment. In the evidence preparation and fact-finding of the original judgment, there are no errors in the rules of evidence, nor errors in the incomplete deliberation, or in the incomplete reasoning. In the process of acquiring ownership of an article, it is necessary to continue the possession of an article with the intention of ownership for a given period. If the possessor does not intend to own ownership in the nature of title, the effect of acquiring ownership does not occur if the possessor did not intend to own ownership. According to Article 33 of the military law, the Japanese property as of August 9, 1945 is attributed to the Gun Office, and the Decree of the same law prohibits the possession of the property from disposing or transferring it without permission, and therefore the possessor bears the duty to keep the property in custody to the State. Therefore, even if there was an independent possession of the property in question, the original judgment cannot be accepted.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined, and according to the original judgment established, the forest of this case was recorded in the name of "○○○○○○○○○○○" as of August 9, 1945 in the registry and the forestry register as of August 9, 194, and therefore, it is treated as property devolving upon the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff purchased the real estate before August 9, 1945, the Plaintiff did not file a petition or lawsuit for cancellation of reversion within the statutory period, and thus, the Plaintiff lost ownership of the forest of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles, and the original decision cited in the arguments is not proper.

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Round Kim Gi-soon