(a) The meaning of false letter of guarantee or written confirmation to reverse the presumption power of registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and the method of judgment on its falsity;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation under the above Act was not reversed even though the seller died at the time of sale and purchase of the written guarantee and the purchaser was 5 years old and the cause of alteration of rights did not coincide with the purchaser's assertion and the cause of acquisition of rights is not reliable, and there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration and the falsity of the written guarantee under the above Act.

A. Although the presumption power of the above registration is not reversed unless it is proved that the registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate is presumed to conform to the substantive legal relationship, and that the letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act is false or forged, or that the registration is not legally registered due to other reasons, the above false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation which does not fit the truth. Since the above Act permits registration which does not coincide with the process of the alteration of rights to the transferee of real estate after the death of the original owner in light of the fact that the certificate of guarantee or confirmation is stated as being taken over after the death of the original owner, this alone cannot be said to be false, but if it is proved by other data that the substantial contents are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to be reversed.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation under the above Act was not reversed even though the seller died at the time of sale and purchase of the written guarantee and the purchaser was 5 years old and the cause of alteration of rights was not consistent with the purchaser's assertion and the cause of acquisition of rights was not reliable, and there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration and the falsity of the written guarantee under the above Act

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 6 and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1785 delivered on May 24, 198 (Gong1988, 985) (Gong1988, 985) 90Meu8616 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong191, 67)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, Attorneys Kang Hong-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Jeju District Court Decision 90Na578 delivered on December 6, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1 and that the plaintiffs and non-party 2 inherited property after that person died on April 4, 1962. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for cancellation on the ground that the presumption of legality of the above registration is not reversed, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the certificate of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Real Estate, which is a cause certificate attached to the registration of ownership preservation, was falsely prepared or forged, or that the above registration was not made lawfully due to any other reason, after the registration was made under the name of March 19, 1981 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership.

However, a registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and it is the original adjudication that does not reverse the presumption power of the above registration unless it is proved that the letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act was false or forged, or that it was not a legitimate registration for other reasons. However, the false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantive contents on the reason of the change of rights are inconsistent with the truth, and the above special measures are stated as being taken over after the death of the original owner in light of the fact that the actual contents on the reason of the change of rights are not consistent with the process of the change of rights, the presumption power of the registration shall be deemed to be reversed.

In this case, when Defendant 2 completed the above registration of preservation of ownership, the contents of the letter of guarantee attached to the application for the issuance of a written confirmation (Evidence No. 4-1, 2) are to be jointly and severally guaranteed that Defendant 2 purchased from the deceased Nonparty 1 on May 26, 1963 the real estate in this case and actually owns it. According to the records, Defendant 2 had already died at the time of sale and purchase of the above letter of guarantee, and Defendant 2 had only five years old. The Defendants asserted that Defendant 2 purchased the above real estate from the deceased Nonparty 1, his father, and again donated it to Defendant 2, and that Defendant 1, the father of the above defendant 2, donated it from the deceased Nonparty 1, and the contents of the above letter of guarantee were not consistent with the Defendants’ assertion, and thus, the Defendants did not agree with the reasoning of alteration of rights as stated in the above letter of guarantee, and thus, the court below's decision that Defendant 1 had no reason to accept the above presumption of alteration of rights, regardless of the Japanese evidence No. 15.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of ownership preservation 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 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)