According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that on August 25, 1980, about 205,774 square meters of forest land (hereinafter "1 forest land") in Ansan-gun ( Address 1 omitted) in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, etc. (Act No. 3094), the ownership transfer registration based on the sale on April 5, 1970 has been completed by the plaintiff on August 25, 198, and the above ( Address 2 omitted) 65,45 square meters of forest land (No. 2 forest land) was proved to be unlawful, since it is hard to find the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership transfer registration based on the above real estate ownership transfer registration was completed by the non-party 2 in front of the deceased non-party 2 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, etc. (Act No. 2111, Sep. 5, 1954).

However, since registration under the Act on Special Measures is completed in accordance with the lawful procedure under the same Act and is presumed to be in accordance with the substantive relationship, it is the original adjudication that there is a burden of proving the assertion of the presumption number. However, if the other party has proved that the substantial contents of the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, which was the basis of the registration, are false, or that the substantive contents are not true, the presumption of the registration shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of proving the falsity of the guarantee certificate, etc. shall not be sufficient to the extent of judge's conviction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da2236, Apr. 23, 1991; 91Da4898, Apr. 26, 1991; 91Da10480, Dec. 27, 1991).

In this case, first of all, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant 1 et al.”) with respect to the registration of forest land under the name of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 1, et al. are jointly and severally guaranteed that the above forest land was actually owned as of April 5, 1970 after purchasing from the Plaintiff. According to the records, Defendant 1 et al. and their successors, and Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 did not purchase the above forest land from the Plaintiff, but purchased the above forest land under the name of Nonparty 1 with consent of the Plaintiff on October 16, 1965 and completed the registration of the transfer of rights with respect to the above forest land under the name of the Plaintiff for convenience, but they did not comply with the purport that the Plaintiff purchased the above forest land under the name of the Plaintiff’s trust and did not complete the registration of the transfer of rights with respect to the above forest land under the name of the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff purchased the above forest land under the name of the Plaintiff’s trust.

Next, according to the records, Defendant 7, the heir of the above deceased and Defendant 8, the successor of the above deceased, etc. did not purchase the above woodland from the plaintiff on September 5, 1954, but did not purchase the above woodland from the plaintiff on December 16, 194, and the above deceased succeeded the above woodland to the plaintiff on December 16, 194, and completed the registration of collection of the above woodland under the name of the plaintiff on September 5, 1965, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff, and it cannot be viewed that the above contents were altered within 3 years after the above appraiser completed the registration of ownership transfer. According to the records, the above deceased did not purchase the forest land from the plaintiff on September 5, 1954, but did not purchase it from the plaintiff on December 16, 1965, and the above deceased did not claim that the above contents were altered within 3 years after the above appraiser completed the registration of ownership transfer in the above forest.

Although the court below should have deliberated and judged on the defendants' defense that the presumption power of each of the above registrations was reversed, and further conforms to the substantive relations, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures and the falsity of the guarantee certificate under the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument on this point is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.