(a) The presumption of right by the detailed keeping of forests and fields;

(b) Where the name of the owner is entered in the land cadastre restored without any legal basis, the presumption of such right;

C. Where the name and address of Japanese recognition are stated in the land cadastre, but the history, accident, and date thereof are vacant, whether the fact of succession to ownership from the person under the circumstance can be presumed (negative)

A. The title keeping of the forest land is merely a document prepared for the administrative purpose of imposing taxes, and there is no presumption of right in the statement.

B. If the competent authority arbitrarily restored the land cadastre before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act (Act No. 2801) as amended on December 31, 1975, without any legal basis, for the convenience of taxation, prior to the enforcement of this Act, the competent authority cannot recognize the presumption of right in the record, in light of the provisions of Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act and Article 6 of the Addenda, which provide that even if the name of the owner is stated on the restored land cadastre, matters concerning the owner cannot be registered for recovery without any real estate

(c) Where the land cadastre contains the name and address of “non-party 1” but the history, accident and date thereof are vacant, and there is no entry in the previous legal relationship, the said land cadastre cannot be deemed as the land cadastre that can presume the fact of ownership succession in accordance with the due procedure from the person who acquired the forest from the original acquisitor of the forest as the assessment title “non-party 1.”

(a)B. Article 186(b) of the Civil Code; Article 13 of the former Cadastral Act (Act No. 2801, Dec. 31, 1975); Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11998, Nov. 3, 1986); Article 6 of the Addenda. Article 9 of the Cadastral Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 74Da1802 delivered on March 11, 1975, 78Da103,1034 delivered on August 22, 1978 (Gong1978,1104) 80Da766 delivered on July 8, 1980 (Gong1980,1303) / B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1684 delivered on September 9, 1980 (Gong190,737) 91Da1835 delivered on January 21, 192

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na3581 delivered on December 28, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant deemed the land in this case as non-real estate and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant through the procedures prescribed in the State Property Act, and recognized the fact that the land in this case was owned by the non-party 2 at the time of the enforcement of the Land Investigation Decree in 1912 and that the forest in this case was divided and land category changed as stated in the judgment of the court below. The court below held that the non-party 1 acquired the land in this case by taking full account of the following facts: the defendant's acquisition of the land in this case, each of subparagraph 1-2-1, No. 2-6, No. 2-1, No. 2-1, No. 2-6, No. 4-1, and No. 4-2, each of the 58 forest in each of the judgment prior to the subdivision of this case was owned by the non-party 1, Japan as of June 9, 1945.

However, as evidence No. 2-1 (Land Register) does not contain any entry related to the defendant and evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, forest land name keeping records is merely a document prepared for the administrative purpose of imposing taxes, and there is no presumption of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da766, Jul. 8, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 74Da1802, Mar. 11, 1975). Even if the above statement is based on evidence No. 1, the taxpayer of the forest land shall not be deemed to own the land as non-party No. 1. 6 (former Land Ledger) and No. 2-6 (Land Ledger) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records No. 100, which are the most effective date of the restoration from No. 15-1, and the pertinent provision of the Cadastral Records No. 2, which is the most effective date of the restoration from the original cadastral records No. 97, Dec. 15, 196.

In the case of this case, the above evidence Nos. 1-1 shall be deemed as its description and it appears that the competent authority arbitrarily restored the above facts to the convenience of taxation without any legal basis before the enforcement of the amended Cadastral Act (Act No. 2801), and the above evidence No. 1-1 stated the name and address of Nonparty 1 on the ground that the above evidence No. 1-1 stated the history, accident and its date, but since the history, accident and its date are vacant, the above evidence No. 1-1 cannot be deemed as the land cadastre that can be presumed as the fact of succession of ownership from the deceased Nonparty 2 who acquired the above forest as the name of circumstance, the original land No. 1-1 cannot be deemed as the land cadastre that can be presumed as the fact of succession of ownership according to the legitimate procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 8Da4178, Feb. 27, 190). Thus, the court below erred in its judgment by adopting the evidence No. 1-1 and its remaining evidence, which affected the above fact of succession.

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)