[2] In a case where a person who completed a registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate claims that the cause of acquisition is different from that stated in a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation, whether the presumption of registration is broken (negative in principle)

[3] Where one of the co-owners occupies all the co-owned real estate, the nature of the possession of the other co-owner's share (=the possession of the other owner)

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, effective. hereinafter "the Special Measures Act") shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of ownership transfer registration or certificate under the Special Measures Act shall not be reversed unless it is proved that the certificate of guarantee or certificate under the Special Measures Act is false or forged, or that it is not legally registered due to other reasons. Here, false guarantee or certificate refers to a letter of guarantee or certificate of confirmation that the substantive contents of the change of rights are inconsistent with the truth (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da33775, Oct. 27, 200). It shall not be presumed to be 200 if a person who completed the registration under the Special Measures Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate claims that he/she acquired a right according to another reason for acquisition, and it shall not be presumed to have been 200 if he/she asserts that the registration under the Special Measures Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate was 200.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's assertion that the acquisition cause is a donation or private donation different from the sale on January 15, 1972, which is the cause of acquiring the ownership transfer registration of this case on the registry, cannot be reversed the presumption ability of the above registration solely on the ground that the defendant's assertion that the land of this case was donated or received a private donation from the deceased non-party, in full view of all the circumstances as duly admitted by the court below, was reversed on the ground that the defendant's assertion that it was proved to the extent that it was not true despite the evidence duly admitted by the court below. In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of the ownership transfer registration of this case or the distribution of the burden of proof in accordance with the special measures as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Further, the part of the defendant's ground of appeal pointing out the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the court below cannot

2. As to the third ground for appeal

Even if one co-owner occupies all of the co-owners, the co-owned real estate shall be deemed to be the possession of another co-owner within the scope of the share ratio of other co-owners by the nature of the source, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1418, Dec. 13, 1988; 95Da51861, Jul. 26, 1996, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, only one of the inheritors, was the deceased non-party who was the deceased's heir or did not receive a donation or a private donation but was in force of special measures without permission after completing the registration of transfer of ownership in his own name. The defendant's possession of the land in this case should be deemed as the possession without the intention of the owner as to the extent exceeding the defendant's inheritance shares. In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reversal of presumption of possession with autonomy, or by failing

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)