All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement submitted after the expiration of the period).

1. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal, the registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982; hereinafter "Special Measures Act") shall be presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of transfer registration shall not be lost unless it is proved that the letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed by the Special Measures Act is false or forged, or that the registration was not duly registered due to other reasons. In addition, even if a person who completed the registration pursuant to the Special Measures Act claims that he/she acquired a right based on other grounds of acquisition, if he/she asserts that the cause of acquisition stated in the letter of guarantee or confirmation is different from the fact, it is obvious that the registration pursuant to the Special Measures Act cannot be completed or that the content of such assertion

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that it is clear that it is a plosive tool, the above reasons alone cannot be deemed to have broken the presumption ability of registration made under the Act on Special Measures, and only if it is proven to the extent that it is not true about the fact that the cause of acquisition newly asserted by other data is proven by other data, the presumption ability of registration is broken.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da71388, 71395 Decided November 22, 2001, etc.). The court below acknowledged that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of AI has been completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures on January 18, 1985 with respect to the land of this case. The court below held that the mere fact that Z was the owner of the land before the division of this case cannot be deemed to have been false or forged merely because it was the owner of the land before the division of this case. In light of the above legal principles, the court below's above records are examined.