The preservation of ownership, which has been made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 3094), is a valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. However, if it is presumed that the registration has been made by false or forged letter of guarantee and confirmation, such presumption shall be deemed to have been destroyed.

The judgment of the court below held that the forest of this case was inherited in succession by the plaintiff, who was the part of the plaintiff's expansion of the forest of this case, owned by the above non-party on May 25, 1918. The defendant, by managing the forest of this case from the time of his fleet, issued a false guarantee certificate from the farmland members as if the defendant purchased the forest of this case from the non-party 1 on March 20, 1955. Accordingly, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership, since the above registration of preservation of ownership was made under the defendant's name, since each evidence of the court below corresponding thereto is insufficient to recognize that the above registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case was completed on the basis of a false or forged guarantee and confirmation certificate, and it rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no other evidence to recognize it.

According to the evidence No. 5-1 (Application for Registration of Change of Ownership), evidence No. 5-2 (Application for Certificate No. 5-2) and evidence No. 5-3 (Guarantee Certificate), Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, etc., signed and sealed on March 20, 195, that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to purchase the forest of this case from Nonparty 1, his father, which is the forest of this case, and on the guarantee certificate signed and sealed by Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, etc., which signed and sealed by the guarantor, the title of this case was changed to the name of the defendant in the book of registration No. 1-1 (No. 5), Defendant No. 6-10 (Plaintiff), Defendant’s evidence No. 13 (No. 5), Defendant’s protocol of interrogation No. 14 (No. 15), Defendant’s protocol of interrogation No. 16 (No. 5) and Nonparty 2’s testimony No. 16, etc. as well as Defendant’s witness No. 5-1.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the defendant purchased the forest of this case in this case without having purchased it, and the content of the letter of guarantee that the defendant purchased the forest of this case from the above non-party 1 on March 20, 1955 shall be deemed to be a false content contrary to the truth, and therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case which has been completed on this basis shall be deemed to have lost its estimated ability.

Ultimately, the court below is unable to be relieved of criticism that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in determining whether or not the certificate of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership was a false certificate, and it constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)