[2] Whether the presumption of registration is broken solely on the ground that the person who completed the registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate claims different from those stated in a letter of guarantee or a certificate regarding the cause of acquisition (negative)

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The presumption of transfer registration completed under the Act on Special Measures shall not be broken unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that it is not legally registered due to any other reason. Here, false letter of guarantee or confirmation means a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantial contents of the reason for change of right are inconsistent with the truth. In light of the fact that the Act on Special Measures allows registration that is inconsistent with the process of change of right to the actual transferee of real estate, it cannot be said that the entry of the name of the seller or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or confirmation is different from the actual fact, or that only the current state of right is stated. It cannot be said that the legitimate presumption of registration is broken up merely because it is 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

According to the records, the defendant asserted that he, his father, was not purchasing the land of this case from Kim Jong-chul on January 2, 1973, but acquired through payment in kind in around 1935, but around 1975, that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the deceased Kim Jong-sik and that he agreed to be directly transferred the registration of this case between Kim Jong-sik and the above Kim Jong-sik and completed the registration of this case in accordance with the agreement, and that the registration of this case was completed. However, it is clear that the defendant's agreement on the special measures for the transfer of ownership around 1970 as the cause of the acquisition of the land of this case was subject to Articles 3 and 10 of the Act on the Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership of Rights, and as long as there is no evidence to doubt that the substantial contents of the guarantee document as the basis of the registration of this case and other materials that could prove that the defendant's assertion is not true, the presumption of the registration of this case can be reversed in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by understanding the reason for acquiring the land in this case by the defendant's father, which was paid in kind by the deceased Cho Jong-young, from the deceased Lee Jong-young, and it is clear that the above reason for acquiring the real estate already registered is limited to the case where the registered titleholder or his heir is actually transferred from the registered titleholder or his heir, and it cannot complete the registration under the Act on Special Measures because it is not subject to the issuance of a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures, and therefore it is not possible to complete the registration under the Act on Special Measures. Accordingly, by misunderstanding the defendant's assertion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures, thereby making it erroneous. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)