1. The registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, effective) is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the legal procedures prescribed in the same Act, and the person seeking the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land shall assert and prove that the certificate of guarantee under Article 5 of the same Act, which is the document attached by the title holder of the registration of preservation of ownership, was false or forged, and that the registration of preservation of ownership was not lawfully made due to any other reason (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1396, Mar. 8, 1988). The above false letter of guarantee or confirmation is that the actual contents of the above registration of preservation of ownership was not true (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1312, Oct. 28, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1785, May 24, 1988).

However, according to the records, the defendant asserted that the above non-party 1 delivered 5 00 am to the deceased non-party 5, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 5 (the assertion in the purchase purport), and the plaintiff acknowledged that the non-party 5 received 5 am from the above non-party 1 around 1963, it stated that he received 5 am as land rent for the forest of this case. According to the non-party 6's testimony adopted by the court below, the non-party 1 stated that the above non-party 1 had 5 am rice to the plaintiff's side, but it was clear that the above non-party 1 had found 5 am in relation to the forest of this case, and it was stated that the above non-party 1 had am 500 am in 750 am (the first 25 am in the forest register, but it was stated that the remaining correction area was 100 am in the forest of this case, and it was stated that the forest of this case was 100 am.14 am.

Therefore, in light of the above circumstances, the court below should examine the prices, etc. of the forest of this case at the time of 1963 and examine whether the above 500 Gama was paid as the purchase price or as the payment was made as the rent as alleged by the plaintiff, and examine whether or not the above 50 Gama was paid as the purchase price, and merely without clarifying the above facts, it can not be readily concluded that the above guarantee is false only by the evidence at the time of the court below without clarifying the above facts. The court below found the facts as stated in its decision without any promotion or examination as to this point, and ruled that the registration of invalidation by destroying the presumption power of the preservation registration of this case, after which the court below reversed the presumption power of the preservation registration of this case, shall be deemed to be erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption power of the preservation registration of ownership,

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)