A. Whether the presumption of ownership transfer registration affects the former owner (affirmative)

B. In a case where a third party is involved in the act of disposal by the former registration titleholder and the former registration titleholder claims that the former registration titleholder is the representative of the former registration titleholder, whether the former registration titleholder has the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration document, such as where the third party did not have the power to represent the third party on the ground that the registration is invalid, or where the third party forged the registration document (affirmative)

(a) If the registration of ownership transfer has been made with respect to real estate, it shall be presumed that not only the third party but also the former owner acquires ownership by legitimate cause of registration;

B. In cases where a third party is involved in the act of disposal rather than by the former registrant's direct act of disposal, the registration of the former registrant shall be presumed to have been duly made even if the former registrant claims that the former registrant is the agent of the former registrant. Therefore, the former titleholder who claims the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the cause of the registration is null and void shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration document, i.e., if the third party did not have the authority to represent the former titleholder, or if the third party has forged the registration document of the former titleholder.

(b)Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da3010 Decided June 7, 197 (Gong1977, 10193) decided June 22, 1982 (Gong1982, 682). Supreme Court Decision 65Da837 Decided August 24, 1965

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Kim Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

○○ Private Teaching Institutes et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and 10 others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na11683, 11690 decided June 14, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

If the registration of ownership transfer has been made on real estate, the registrant shall not only the third party, but also the former owner shall be presumed to have acquired the ownership based on the legitimate reason for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da791 delivered on June 22, 1982). The decision of the court below that held on the premise of the above purport is justified and it is merely an error in the decision of the court below due to the opinion of the party member and the dissenting opinion.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the registration of transfer of co-ownership in the names of the Defendants (excluding Defendant ○○ Private Teaching Institutes) with respect to the forest of this case was not a cause for the sale of shares, but it is hard to believe that the above deceased non-party 1, who was the cemetery of the deceased 2, forged relevant documents or entered into a sales contract with the deceased 3, a unauthorized representative, and that the registration of the cause for the establishment of the ○○○ Private Teaching Institutes is a registration of invalidation of the cause for the establishment of the ○○○○○ Private Teaching Institutes, which was based on the above facts stated in its judgment, and it is hard to find that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in the above evidence No. 3-1 (registration certificate by inheritance), and that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff 1's name and the signature and seal affixed to the above documents No. 2, as otherwise stated in the evidence No. 2, the plaintiff 1's signature and seal affixed to the above evidence No. 197.

With respect to the third point:

According to the records, the first instance court's reply submitted by defendant 2, Oct. 31, 198, stating that the Defendants purchased the forest of this case from the deceased non-party 3 who is the representative of the plaintiffs. However, the above reply did not have been stated on the date for pleading, and the Defendants' agent asserted that the deceased non-party 1 purchased the forest of this case from the plaintiffs as the mediation of the above deceased non-party 3, so it cannot be deemed that the above deceased non-party 3 is the representative of the plaintiffs. Even if considering the facts stated in the defendant 2's reply as the whole purport of oral argument, it cannot be said that the above fact alone proves that the deceased non-party 3 was the representative of the plaintiffs, and therefore it cannot be said that the deceased non-party 3 was the representative of the plaintiffs. Therefore, we agree with the judgment of the court below to the same purport.

In addition, if a third party is involved in the act of disposal not by the direct act of the former registration titleholder, the registration of the former registration titleholder shall be presumed to have been duly made even if the former registration titleholder is the representative of the former registration titleholder. Therefore, the former registration titleholder who claims the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the cause of the registration is null and void shall bear the burden of proving the opposing fact, that is, the third party did not have the authority to represent the former registration titleholder, or that the third party has forged the registration document of the former registration titleholder. Therefore, in this case, the burden of proving that the latter non-party 3 sold the former registration as the former registration titleholder is against the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with this purport is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of burden of proof as alleged above.

Party members of the theory are different cases from this case, and thus they are not appropriate cases. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)