[소유권이전등기말소][공1983.5.15.(704),749]
Presumption power of transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership, which has been made by false guarantee;
The presumption of registration of ownership transfer made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969) is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship. However, if it is recognized that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with a false certificate issued even though the forest has not been purchased, the presumption of registration is broken.
Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Law No. 2111, May 21, 1969)
Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036 Decided April 27, 1982
Plaintiff
Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant
Busan District Court Decision 81Na764 delivered on November 23, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
It is identical to the theory that the ownership transfer registration completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership Transfer (Law No. 2111, May 21, 1969) is presumed to be registered in conformity with the substantive legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036, Apr. 27, 1982). However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had purchased the forest of this case by using the evidences of this case as a false letter of guarantee even though he did not purchase the forest of this case, and recognized the fact that he had passed through the registration of transfer. The judgment of the court below did not go against the precedents of the above Supreme Court where the judgment of the court below points out the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below, which is a small case as provided for in the Trial of Small Claims Act, a legitimate ground for appeal is not justified.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young