B. The meaning of a false letter of guarantee and a written confirmation which reverses the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the above law

B. Although the ownership transfer registration under the above law is completed in accordance with the lawful procedure under the same Act and is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, if it is recognized that the false letter of guarantee and the confirmation have been completed, the above presumption is reversed, and here, it means that the contents which form the cause of the alteration of the right are not true.

In light of the purport of Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership"), it shall be interpreted that other juristic acts, such as sale, donation, exchange, etc., which are the cause of the act, were conducted on June 21, 1969 (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu493, Nov. 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 82Ma109, Jun. 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Ma109, Jun. 12, 1982). The defendant's consistent argument at the fact-finding court is that the non-party, the original owner of the forest of this case, Kim Jong-sung, who is the deceased's predecessor, under title trust in sequence to the non-party Kim Jong-sung, the deceased's predecessor, and the defendant's above entries in the registration of ownership transfer cannot be viewed to be "the above entries in the defendant's registration of ownership transfer in the forest of this case 97."

Therefore, the original judgment committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by applying Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases and recognizing the erroneous presumption of presumption for the above registration, because it failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the date of the act of causing the registration of this case. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The presumption of transfer of ownership under the Special Provision of the same Act is presumed to be a registration completed in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. However, if it is recognized that the registration was completed based on a false letter of guarantee and a written confirmation, the presumption of the above presumption is reversed. Here, the defendant's assertion that there was no purchase of the forest land in this case from the above Kim Jong-man on September 9, 1959 as stated in the above letter of guarantee and written confirmation, while the defendant alleged that the forest land in this case was purchased from the above Kim Jong-man on July 25, 1999, the above letter of guarantee and written confirmation should be presumed to be false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu15809, Jan. 25, 1990; 84Meu15809, Jul. 10, 1984; 2001Da138381, Mar. 16, 1984).

In the end, the original judgment violated the rules of evidence and thereby commits an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by wrong determination as to the falsity of the above letter of guarantee, etc.

3. Accordingly, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)