[2] The presumption of the authenticity of an official document and the probative value of the weekend portion

[2] Unless there are special circumstances, such as that official documents presumed to be true are contrary to the truth, the probative value of the contents may not be easily rejected. In the case where there are red lines among the descriptions of the relevant official documents, the part which was cancelled shall have the probative value as stated in the cancelled statement, barring special circumstances, such as the background and mode of cancellation, etc.

In full view of the evidence established within the court below: (a) on July 10, 1918, the land of this case was circumstances under the joint name of Nonparty 2 (Plaintiff’s assistance) and Nonparty 3; (b) on July 10, 1918, the old forestry register was entered on the land of this case prepared during a certain period; and (c) on March 13, 1939, the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3 entered on the joint name of the non-party 9 and the non-party 3 were entered on the non-party 9’s ownership preservation on the land of this case; (d) on the non-party 1 and the non-party 9’s non-party 1 and the non-party 9’s non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 9’s non-party 2’s non-party 9’s non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 3’s non-party 1 and the non-party 9’s share were entered on May 15, 19.

In addition, the lower court determined that the part of the lower court’s land ownership transfer registration on the ground that: (a) the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 1 was completed on May 13, 1954 with respect to the part at the end of the previous parcels of land in the name of Nonparty 2; (b) the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 1 was completed on the ground of the inheritance of Australia; and (c) the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 2 was completed on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 1 was completed on the part of the above parcels of land in the name of Nonparty 2; and (d) the ownership transfer registration of the same was completed on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 2 was completed on the part of the above parcels of land in the name of Nonparty 1, 1954; and (e) the ownership transfer registration of the same was completed on the part of the previous parcels of land in the name of Nonparty 1, 2, which was recorded on the original parcels of land in the name of Nonparty 1, 1950, and was not recorded on the original parcels of this case’s.

2. The judgment of this Court

Article 2 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 113 of Aug. 23, 1920) which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 113 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 45 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Apr. 25, 1914) provides that matters concerning the transfer of ownership shall not be registered in the forest register unless the notification of the management of the registration is given. Thus, the entry of the change in the owner in the old forest register shall not be deemed to have been made by the notification of the registration public official pursuant to the above provisions. Thus, if the ownership is registered in the forest register, the transfer of ownership shall be deemed to have been completed in the name of the registration public official, barring any special circumstance, and the ownership shall be deemed to have been destroyed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da14701, 14718, Sept. 5, 195).

However, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, on September 19, 1945, the part of Non-Party 2’s name in the transfer of ownership in the old forest register of this case, which was the end of the previous forest register of this case, was erroneous, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the transfer of ownership was completed by Non-Party 2 in the above date and time, but it is difficult to accept it for the following reasons.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that official documents presumed to have been true are contrary to the truth, the probative value of the contents may not be easily rejected, and even in the case of cancellation of a red line among the entry of the official documents, the content of the cancellation shall have the probative value as stated in the cancellation, unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that the cancellation was done normally in the process of the cancellation or pattern. Furthermore, in addition, in the case where the seal is affixed with the seal deemed to be a public official in charge as of the end portion as of May 13, 1954 that the court below recognizes the authenticity (the seal is deemed to be the same as the seal affixed on the end portion of the week of the transfer of ownership as of May 13, 1954 that the court below recognized the authenticity, it shall not be easily rejected the authenticity of the entry in the weekend.

However, even if examining the contents and records of the previous forestry register of this case did not appear to have any particular circumstance to suspect the probative value of the above weekends, the court below did not err in the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete trial on September 19, 1945 by rejecting the probative value of the weekends on the ground that it was erroneous in the part at the end of the previous owner's name, on the ground that the fact that the restoration registration of Nonparty 1 was cancelled as stated in its reasoning, and the fact that the part at the end of the previous owner's name appears to have been cancelled due to mistake, which was merely the fact that there was no error in the cancellation of the registration of the restoration registration of Nonparty 1, as stated in its reasoning. (In relation to this point, the owner's name at the end of September 19, 1945 in the previous forestry register was stated in the central government, and the name of Nonparty 2, who was the end of the week, was stated in the name of the defendant as far as the previous owner's name was not written.)

Therefore, the court below should have the parties asserting that the names of Nonparty 2 were erroneous during the weekends from the owner column of September 19, 1945 in the above forestry book to prove that there were such special circumstances, and if such circumstances were not shown, the probative value as stated in the weekends cannot be recognized. In the same purport, the petition of appeal pointing out the illegality of the judgment of the court below is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)