With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the transfer registration of ownership in the forest of this case was completed in the name of the deceased non-party on October 31, 1970 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership on January 27, 1963 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act"), but the above non-party had already died on March 15, 1952, and thus, it was purchased from January 27, 1963 after the non-party's death, and the transfer registration in Defendant 1's name, which was completed under the Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership, was completed in the name of the deceased non-party. Further, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation registration in this case on the premise that there is no evidence to support the defendants' assertion that the transfer registration of ownership in the forest of this case in the name of the defendants is in accord with the substantive legal relationship.

However, the transfer of ownership, which has been completed in accordance with the procedure under the special provisions, is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and this presumption is not broken unless there is any assertion that the letter of guarantee and confirmation under the special provisions is false or forged, or that the registration is not legitimate due to any other reason (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036, Apr. 27, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Meu233, Sept. 14, 1982). In this case, it can be said that, as a matter of course, the guarantee certificate and confirmation document substituted for the certificate cannot be deemed to have been prepared falsely, and it cannot be said that the legitimate presumption of the registration under Defendant 1’s name under the special provisions has been completed, as long as the date of purchase is later than the date of death of the above Nonparty, who is the registered titleholder.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the presumption of registration completed under the Act on Special Cases, and the burden of proof, which constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)