According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the registration of preservation of ownership of the real estate of this case was made on June 30, 1984 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3562), and confirmed that the registration of preservation of ownership was made on June 30, 1984. The real estate of this case was originally owned by the deceased Non-party 1, the plaintiff et al. after the death of the above deceased. Accordingly, since the defendant obtained a false certificate and a written confirmation and completed the registration of preservation of ownership as above, the registration of preservation of ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership is presumed to be null and void, and it is presumed that the registration of preservation of ownership in accordance with the above law has been completed in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and it is not sufficient to believe that the above written certificate and written confirmation consistent with the above law were false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of non-party 16.

However, registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to have been made in accordance with the lawful procedure under the same Act, and it is presumed to have been in accordance with the substantive relationship, so the court below held that the person who filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration has the burden of proving the above presumption number of times and the burden of proof. However, if the other party has proved that the substantive contents of the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, are false or that the substantive contents are not true, the presumption power of the registration shall be deemed to have been reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31804 delivered on January 19, 1993, etc.).

However, according to the letter of guarantee attached to the application for the issuance of the certificate concerning the real estate of this case (No. 6-2), it can be known that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to guarantee that the defendant received the above real estate from the non-party 1 on March 10, 1951 and actually owns it. According to the records, the defendant does not directly receive the above real estate from the non-party 1, but the above real estate was owned by the non-party 1 on his own, and the above real estate was originally owned by the non-party 1 on May 31, 1918. The above door was under the name of the deceased non-party 1 on the ground of the above fact at the time of the fact that the court of first instance decided to title trust with the defendant around June 1984, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in accordance with the above special measures, and thus, the substantial contents of the above letter of guarantee are inconsistent with the truth and the facts that the non-party 3, the guarantor under the above guarantee, and the above non-party 1's testimony was not proven.

The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, recognized the fact that the instant real estate was owned by the lower court in the original duyangyang-Saeong, Pacific-Saeong, and was under the name of the deceased Nonparty 1 at the time of the forest land assessment around May 31, 1918. However, such fact-finding is without merit even after examining the evidence adopted by the lower court in light of the records.

Examining the evidence relations selected by the court below in light of the records, the court below seems to have found the above fact-finding based on Gap evidence Nos. 13-2 (certified copy of the Examination Protocol), Eul evidence Nos. 13-2 (Rules), Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Minutes), Eul evidence Nos. 3 (S. and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (Minutes of Special General Meeting), and testimony of non-party 3, non-party 6, non-party 7, and non-party 8.

However, in light of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, which the court below first adopted, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the evidence in light of the fact that the above documents can be seen as being unilaterally prepared by Nonparty’s door at the time of the institution of the instant case, as the rules or minutes of the Nonparty’s door, which included the purport that the instant real estate was owned by Nonparty’s door.

According to the evidence No. 13-1 of the evidence No. 13, which was adopted by the court below, the above document (Evidence No. 3) was written in advance by the defendant and received the seal of the plaintiff through the above non-party No. 9, since the real estate of this case was written as one of the non-party No. 1 and the signature and seal of the plaintiff et al. were confirmed to confirm it. However, if the evidence No. 13-1 of the evidence No. 13 of the non-party No. 9, which was not rejected by the court below, was a copy of the witness examination protocol stating the testimony of the non-party No. 9 as a witness of the case related to the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 3, the plaintiff's mother, and the plaintiff's seal was not directly sealed by the plaintiff himself, but it was insufficient to support that the above document No. 3 was owned by the plaintiff's body.

In short, the testimony of Nonparty 3, 6, 7, and 8, which was adopted by the court below, is in possession of the real estate of this case, in short, the real estate of this case is owned by Nonparty 3, 3, 6, and 7, and the testimony of Nonparty 8, which was adopted by the court below. The above is not the Plaintiff’s lineal line but the Plaintiff’s lineal line, with six funerals installed, and the above funerals have been managed among the doors, and the real estate of this case cannot be recognized as possession of the real estate of this case solely with abstract testimony of possession of clans. Even though the funerals of this case, which are not the Plaintiff’s lineal line, are installed six persons on the real estate of this case, not the Plaintiff’s lineal line, and the above funerals have been managed among the doors, it is insufficient to conclude that the real estate of this case

In this case, the real estate of this case was not considered as a common life of the clan members at the time of the situation, but was considered as a sole name of the plaintiff (non-party 1). Each of the above evidences cited by the court below is insufficient to recognize that the real estate of this case was in the middle of the non-party 1 and that the above sentence was entrusted to the above non-party 1.

In short, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of ownership preservation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and the falsity of the letter of guarantee under the same Act, and by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)