(b) The case holding that it is illegal registration where the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation on real estate which is not subject to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer

B. The case holding that in case where a sales contract was made with a false certificate and a false certificate issued by all co-inheritors as if the above real estate was purchased from the co-inheritors and the registration of ownership transfer was made for the purpose of the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, which is the object of the application of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, even though the real estate for which the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the co-inheritors around the end of June 1980, and the registration of ownership transfer was made by obtaining a false certificate and a false certificate as if they were purchased from the whole.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to Article 28 of the Civil Act, a person declared missing shall be deemed to have died when the period of life or death as prescribed in Article 27 of the Civil Act expires. According to Article 25(1) of the Addenda to the Civil Act, the provisions of the former Act shall apply even after the enforcement date of the Civil Act to inheritance commenced prior to the enforcement date. However, pursuant to Article 25(2) of the Addenda to the Civil Act, where the period of disappearance begins due to the declaration of disappearance and the period of disappearance expires after the enforcement date of the former Act, if the missing is declared after the enforcement date of the Civil Act, the provisions of the Civil Act shall apply to inheritance

As determined by the court below, if the Incheon District Court declared missing on January 27, 1967, which was the first owner of the forest of this case after the enforcement date of the Civil Act, on the part of the non-party 1, who was the owner of the forest of this case, even if the missing period expired on July 4, 1957 during the enforcement period of the former Act, the provisions of the Civil Act shall apply to the inheritance order, inheritance portion, and other inheritance. Thus, the judgment of the court below that five persons, such as the non-party 2, the wife, the non-party 3, the deceased, and the non-party 5, who were his wife within the same family register, were the heir of the property of the above non-party 4, the next-party 4, the plaintiff in the same family register, and the non-party 5, who were his wife without the same family register, as in the theory of lawsuit, did not have any errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to inheritance effect or legal principles as in the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below found that the above non-party 2 had no reason to acknowledge that the transfer registration of ownership was unlawful since the defendant purchased the forest of this case from the above non-party 2, one of five co-inheritors, one of the above co-inheritors at the end of June 1980, in order to register the transfer of ownership pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, which had been actually transferred due to a juristic act before December 31, 1974, after making a sale contract stating the date of sale retroactively as the date of March 15, 1973, and the transfer of ownership was made in his name by obtaining a false guarantee certificate as if all co-inheritors, including the plaintiff, etc. purchased the forest of this case from five co-inheritors as if he had purchased the forest of this case. According to Article 3 of the above Special Measures, the court below determined that the above transfer registration of ownership was unlawful or unjust since there was no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer registration of ownership was made under the above non-party 2's name.

In light of the relation with the evidence presented by the court below, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there was no proper trial like the theory of lawsuit or there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. On the premise that only the above non-party 2 becomes the inheritor of the above non-party deceased, the court below criticizes that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of registration in the judgment below, or that the determination of evidence and the recognition of fact, which belongs to the whole authority of the

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)