Based on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below held that the land of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 1, who was the father of the plaintiff, and that the Dong died on April 23, 1959, and that Nonparty 2, who was the father of this case, died on July 15, 1950, the plaintiff 2, who was the father of this case, died on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff was missing due to the June 25 incident and became an absentee, although Defendant 1 purchased the real estate, he completed the registration of ownership transfer under the above law by falsely preparing related documents under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land, etc. as if he purchased the real estate from the above non-party 1, and then, the registration of ownership transfer is invalid, and therefore, the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant 2, who was based on the above registration of the defendant, is also the registration of ownership invalidity of the resolution.

2. The registration of transfer of forest land, which has been made pursuant to the procedure under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Forest and Forest Ownership, shall be presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and this presumption shall not be broken unless there is any assertion that the letter of guarantee and the confirmation document under Article 5 of the Special Act are false or forged, or that it is not a legitimate registration for any other reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036, Apr. 27, 1982). Thus, if the registration of transfer of ownership in the forest land of Defendant 1 was made in accordance with the above special Act, such registration is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

In addition, even if examining the evidence used in the judgment below by comparing the records, it shall not be deemed that the above defendant 1's transfer registration of ownership was made with a false letter of guarantee and a false confirmation as to the approval of the court below, and it shall not be deemed that the presumption of the above registration has broken down for the following reasons: the purchase registration of the principal by the principal of the defendant is not recognized, or the principal registration was made after the death

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration made under the Act on Special Measures, and as such, it is against the rules of evidence to prove that the registration is in conformity with the substantive relations with the Defendants, who are the title holder of the registration, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)