[1] The case holding that the legal presumption of ownership transfer registration, which was completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, was reversed

[2] The case rejecting the claim by the possessor on the registration of ownership of the forest where the ownership transfer registration for the forest was made is based on a false certificate of guarantee and a false certificate

[1] Although it is presumed that the guarantee certificate attached to the application for the issuance of certificate is actually purchased and owned by a person who completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest and Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), the owner asserts that he/she was given a donation from the former owner to the former owner, and that the actual contents of the guarantee certificate or the confirmation document, which form the basis for the registration of ownership transfer, are not consistent with the truth, and the former owner's death in all at the time of the sale on the ground for registration, one of the persons who completed the registration of ownership transfer, obtained the false certificate and the confirmation document about the other real property of the former owner, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of Dec. 31, 197).

[2] The case rejecting the claim by the possessor on the registry of the forest land as long as the transfer registration of ownership in the forest land completed is based on a false certificate of guarantee and a false certificate, even if the forest land was occupied for ten years as the owner of the forest land, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the owner.

[1] Article 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969) / [2] Article 245 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da49902 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1067) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da50578 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1389)

The training agency for the litigant of the net quantity technology

Macathers et al.

Jeju Livestock Cooperatives and four others

Yang Standards and seven others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 98Gahap3292 delivered on October 7, 1999

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da45409 Delivered on December 11, 2001

1.The judgment of the court below, including the plaintiff's claim extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The Plaintiff

A. As to the forest land listed in paragraphs (1) and (5) of the annexed Table Nos. 1 and (5), each Gwangju District Court Naju District Court Naju District Court 24310 on October 20, 197; (2) the forest land listed in paragraphs (3) and (7) of the same Table; (3) each of the following registry offices registered the establishment of a mortgage as to the forest land listed in paragraphs (8) and (3) of the same Table;

B. As to the forest land listed in paragraphs (1) and (5) of the same list, Defendant Kim Yong-Nam shall: (2) as to shares in 1/6 of the forest land listed in paragraphs (4) and (6) of the same list, the registration of ownership transfer completed as of October 29, 1997 by the same registry; (3) as to shares in 5/6 of the forest land listed in paragraph (8) of the same list, the registration of ownership transfer completed as of February 13, 1996 by the same registry; (4) the registration of ownership transfer completed as of February 13, 1996 by the same registry; (4) the registration of ownership transfer of all co-owners completed as of February 3306 of the same list; (4) the registration of ownership transfer of all co-owners completed as of February 13, 1996; and (5) the registration of ownership transfer completed as of February 16, 199; and (4) the registration of ownership transfer of forest land listed in paragraph (9) of the same list.

(c) The Defendant Yang-line implements the procedure for the cancellation registration of each cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 37012 to 37016 of the receipt on December 28, 1995 with respect to the forest land listed in paragraph 2 of the same list;

(d) The Defendant Yang Shipping System implements each procedure for the cancellation of registration of the transfer of ownership of all co-owners completed No. 25602 of November 10, 1993 with respect to shares of 5/6 of the forest land listed in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the same list;

(e)The defendant's two criteria, two weeks, and Woocheon shall carry out the procedures for the registration of transfer and cancellation of ownership of each share completed under No. 9649 on September 23, 1971 with respect to shares of 1/6 of each of the forests listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list as to shares of 1/6 shares in each of the forests listed in paragraph (9) of the same list, (2) with respect to shares of 1/6 shares in each of the forests listed in paragraph (9) of the same list as of the same date;

(f)(1)With respect to the shares in 3/78 of the forests listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list, Defendant Park Jong-jin, with respect to the shares in 2/78 of the forest listed above, with respect to the shares in 3/78 of the forest listed in the same list, each of the 2/78 shares in the shares in the name of two-way under the name of two-way that was completed on September 23, 1971 by the receipt of No. 9648 of the same registry on September 23, 1971; and (2) Defendant Park Jong-jin, with respect to shares in 3/78 of the forest listed in paragraph (9) of the same list, with respect to the shares in the name of two-thirds of the above forests listed in the same list, the registration of shares in the name of two-way completed on the same date by the same registry office on the same date on the date on the same date on the same date on the same date

(g)(1) With respect to shares in each of the forests listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list, 3/72 shares in each of the forests listed in the same list; with respect to shares in each of the above forests, 2/72 shares in each of the above forests in the defendant Yang Pak, Yang Pak, Yang Pak and Yang Pak, each of the two-thirds of the above forests; (b) the registration of the transfer of shares in the name of the net Yang Pak, completed on September 23, 1971 by the receipt No. 9648 of the same registry; (b) the registration of the transfer of shares in each of the forest listed in paragraph (9) of the same list, completed on August 21, 1993; (2) the registration of the transfer of shares in each of the above forests listed in paragraph (9) of the same list; (3/72 shares in each of the above forests and fields; and (2/72 shares in each of the above forests and fields, the registration of shares in the registration of shares in each of Yang Pon.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claims: Paragraph (1) of this Article;

2. Purport of appeal

가.원고의 항소취지：원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 취소한다. 원고에게, (1) 피고 나주축산업 협동조합(이하 '피고 조합'이라고 한다)은 (가) 별지목록 제1, 5항 기재 각 임야 중 5/6지분에 관하여, 각 광주지방법원 나주등기소 1997. 10. 20. 접수 제24310호로 마친 각 근저당권설정등기의, (나) 같은 목록 제3항 기재 임야 중 5/6지분 및 같은 목록 제7항 기재 임야에 관하여 각 같은 등기소 ① 1996. 12. 23. 접수 제35637호 내지 제35650호로 마친 각 근저당권설정등기의, ② 1997. 2. 11. 접수 제3216호로 마친 근저당권설정등기의, ③ 1997. 7. 9. 접수 제17634호로 마친 근저당권설정등기의, 각 말소등기절차를 이행하고, (2) 피고 김수남은 (가) 같은 목록 제1, 5항 기재 각 임야에 관하여 각 같은 등기소 1995. 12. 28. 접수 제37007호, 제37008호, 제37009호, 제37011호로 마친 각 지분소유권이전등기 및 위 각 임야 중 5/6지분에 관하여 각 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제37010호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, (나) 같은 목록 제4, 6항 기재 각 임야 중 1/6지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 1997. 10. 29. 접수 제24949호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, (다) 같은 목록 제8항 기재 임야 중 5/6지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 1996. 2. 13. 접수 제3306호로 마친 공유자전원의 지분소유권이전등기의, 각 말소등기절차를 이행하고, (3) 피고 양선호는 같은 목록 제2항 기재 임야에 관하여 같은 등기소 1995. 12. 28. 접수 제37012호, 제37013호, 제37014호, 제37016호로 마친 각 지분소유권이전등기 및 위 임야 중 5/6지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제37015호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의 각 말소등기절차를 이행하고, (4) 피고 양선규는 같은 목록 제3, 7항 기재 각 임야 중 4/6지분에 관하여 각 같은 등기소 1993. 11. 10. 접수 제25602호로 마친 공유자전원의 지분소유권이전등기의 각 말소등기절차를 이행하고, (5) 피고 양기준, 양해천은 (가) 같은 목록 제1 내지 6항 기재 각 임야 중 각 1/6지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 1971. 9. 23. 접수 제9648호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, (나) 같은 목록 제9항 기재 임야 중 각 1/6지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제9649호로 마친 각 지분소유권이전등기의, 각 말소등기절차를 이행하고, (6) (가) 피고 박현진은 같은 목록 제1 내지 6항 기재 각 임야 중 3/78지분에 관하여, 피고 양경근, 양명숙, 양혜숙, 양창근, 양진숙은 위 각 임야 중 각 2/78지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 1971. 9. 23. 접수 제9648호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, (나) 피고 박현진은 같은 목록 제9항 기재 임야 중 3/78지분에 관하여, 피고 양경근, 양명숙, 양혜숙, 양창근, 양진숙은 위 각 임야 중 각 2/78지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제9649호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, 각 말소등기절차를 이행하고, (7) (가) 피고 윤정남, 양성진은 같은 목록 기재 제1 내지 6항 기재 각 임야 중 각 3/72지분에 관하여, 피고 양선미, 양경윤, 양선아는 위 각 임야 중 각 2/72지분에 관하여 ① 같은 등기소 1971. 9. 23. 접수 제9648호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, ② 같은 등기소 1993. 8. 21. 접수 제16784호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, (나) 피고 윤정남, 양성진은 같은 목록 기재 제9항 기재 임야 중 각 3/72지분에 관하여, 피고 양선미, 양경윤, 양선아는 위 임야 중 각 2/72지분에 관하여 같은 등기소 1971. 9. 23. 접수 제9649호로 마친 지분소유권이전등기의, 각 말소등기절차를 이행하라(원고는 당심에 이르러 주문 제1의 가.의 (3)항 기재 청구를 추가하였다).

B. Defendant 1., 2., 3., 4., and 7. The purport of appeal is to revoke the part against the above Defendants among the original judgment, and all of the plaintiff's claims corresponding to that part are dismissed.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

As the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff is an act of preserving the above shares from the status of co-owner who has succeeded to the above shares again from the net Yang-Tech, the owner of the 1/6 share of the forest listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the forest of this case"). The defendants seek for the execution of the cancellation registration procedure as to the whole of the above registration completed with respect to the forest of this case, even though the plaintiff succeeded to the 1/6 share of the forest of this case, it is not only the plaintiff who is the right holder of the forest of this case, but also the plaintiff who is the right holder of the forest of this case, the right to claim for the cancellation registration procedure as to the whole of the above forest of this case, which is completed with respect to the forest of this case. In particular, since the forest of this case was already owned by the other party by completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the forest of this case on August 8, 1998, the above lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendants's claim for cancellation registration of ownership invalidation can be dismissed separately.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the statements of Gap evidence 1, 2-1 through 11, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 5, 6-1, 5, 19-9, Gap evidence 63, 64, 67-1, 2, 3, 65-1, 66-1, 2, Eul evidence 68-1, 4-2, 13-1, 13-7, and 9, Gap evidence 63, 64, 67-2, 65, and Gap evidence 66-1, 68-2, 68-1, 4-1, 13-7, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) In the case of 65 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m2,579 m3 m4, 65 m2 m3 m4,000 m3 65 m3 m3,000 m4 m3,000 m3,000 m4 m3,000 m2, 165 m2,00 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,05 m2,000 m2,00

(2)On the other hand, on November 1, 1977, the same 64-62,579 square meters of 64,168 square meters of 64,168 square meters of 181 square meters of 64-3,000,064-4 square meters of 64-6,000 square meters of 64-6 square meters of 64-6,000, 64-8, 181 square meters of 64-9, 64-921,676 square meters of 63.0,000, 64-9, 64, 679, and 67.0 square meters of 63.0 square meters of 64,000, 64,168 square meters of 65,000 square meters of 68,000 and 184,000,000,000

(3) Of the co-ownership shares in the quantitative salary class for each forest listed in the attached Table Nos. 1 through 6, Defendant Maju-nam, Defendant Masan-Jin-Jin with respect to each of the above 3/72 shares in each of the above forests, the above 2/72 shares in each of the above forests were registered by the above registration office on August 21, 1993 with respect to each of the above forests and fields as to each of the 2/72 shares in the above forest.

(4) Of the forests and fields listed in the attached Tables 1 and 5, Defendant Kim Yong-Nam entered 1/6 shares, the aggregate of the shares of Defendant 1/6 and one-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-one-six-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-one-six-one-six-one-one-six-one-six-one-one-six-one-six-one-nine-one-one-nine-one-one-nine-one-nine-one-one-six-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-one-nine-one-nine-one-one-nine-nine-one-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-nine-one-one-nine one- nine-nine-one-one-one-nine one-nine one-nine one- nine-one-one- nine-one-one- nine-one-one-one- nine-one-one- nine-one-one-one one-one one-one one-one-one-one one-one one-one one-one one-one one-one one-one one-one one-one.

(5) Of the forest land listed in paragraph (2) of the same list, the Defendant Yang-ray completed the registration of transfer of ownership of each share on the ground of sale as of December 28, 1995, Nos. 37012 through 37016 of the same registry office, as of December 20, 1995, with respect to the aggregate of 1/6 shares of Defendant Yoon Jong-nam, Training Jin, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do and Yang-do, and one-six-six shares of the Defendant Yang-do.

(6) Of the forests and fields listed in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the same list, the Defendant Yang Jong-do filed a share transfer registration on the ground of sale on November 10, 1993 with the same registry office as the receipt of No. 25602 on October 7, 1993, with respect to the share of 1/6 shares of the Defendant Yoon Jong-nam, Training Jin, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, Yang-do, and Yang-do.

(7)피고 나주축산업 협동조합(이하 '피고 조합'이라고 한다)은 ① 같은 목록 제1, 5항 기재 각 임야에 관하여 같은 등기소 1997. 10. 20. 접수 제24310호로 채권최고액 6억 원, 채무자 김수남 외 13인, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한 각 근저당권설정등기를 경료하고, ② 같은 목록 제3, 7항 기재 임야에 관하여 ⓐ 같은 등기소 1996. 12. 23. 접수 제35637호로 채권최고액 2억 6,900만 원, 채무자 양선규, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓑ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35638호로 채권최고액 1억 3,200만 원, 채무자 김철우, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓒ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35639호로 채권최고액 1억 6,600만 원, 채무자 김순종, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓓ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35640호로 채권최고액 8,700만 원, 채무자 서용득, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓔ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35641호로 채권최고액 1억 5,300만 원, 채무자 박이선, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓕ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35642호로 채권최고액 1억 5,900만 원, 채무자 손택식, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓖ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35643호로 채권최고액 1억 4,700만 원, 채무자 김복배, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓗ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35644호로 채권최고액 8,700만 원, 채무자 이춘수, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓘ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35645호로 채권최고액 9,600만 원, 채무자 양선주, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓙ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35646호로 채권최고액 2억 3,700만 원, 채무자 양선호, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓚ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35647호로 채권최고액 1억 3,200만 원, 채무자 송병곤, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓛ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35648호로 채권최고액 1억 4,400만 원, 채무자 홍소남, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓜ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35649호로 채권최고액 1억 200만 원, 채무자 안금열, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓝ 같은 등기소 같은 날 접수 제35650호로 채권최고액 8,700만 원, 채무자 양은자, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓞ 같은 등기소 1997. 2. 11. 접수 제3216호로 채권최고액 3억 원, 채무자 김수남, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, ⓟ 같은 등기소 1997. 7. 9. 접수 제17634호로 채권최고액 2억 2,000만 원, 채무자 천하영농조합법인, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한, 각 근저당권설정등기를 경료하였고, ③ 같은 목록 제8항 기재 임야에 관하여 같은 등기소 1997. 11. 28. 접수 제27334호로 채권최고액 6억 원, 채무자 김남수 외 13, 근저당권자 피고 조합으로 한 근저당권설정등기를 경료하였다.

(8)Fence on July 19, 1950, after his death on the same day and his death on July 19, 1950, both technologies were solely inherited by agreement and division the shares of both technologies among the forest land of this case, which were the subject of the lawsuit of this case, after his death on December 3, 1999 when the lawsuit of this case was pending.

(9)Yonyon September 17, 1990 deceased, and as his wife, the defendant Yoon-nam and the head of his wife jointly inherited the property in proportion to the share of 3/12 of each of the three-thirds of the defendant training personnel, who is the family heir, and the defendant Yangyang, Yangyang-si, and Yangyang-ray, who is the unmarried father, respectively, in the share of 2/12 of each of them;

(10)Bring the action of this case on February 21, 200, the two houses died on February 21, 2000, and their wife jointly inherited the property in proportion to the share of 2/13 of each of the two-thirds of the two-thirds of the two houses.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s ground of claim

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 8, 10, 11-1, 2, 3, 12, 13-1, 2, 13-2, 14-1, 2, 3, 25, 28-1 through 4, 30-1, 38, 61-2, 2-1 through 9, 19-2, and 19-1 through 11, 38, 38, 61-2, 2-1, 2-9, and 19-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings in each part of testimony of Jeong-nam and Jeong-Nam, and there is no contrary proof to believe otherwise.

(A) The forest of this case purchased the forest of this case as the mountain of the 19th YYY and the 19th YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

(B) On September 23, 1971, 5 others, including the Defendant, completed the registration of transfer of ownership of each share based on the sale on October 1, 1957 under the Act on Special Measures, as seen earlier, on September 23, 197, the two owners died on July 19, 1950; the two roads were October 3, 1949; the two roads were dead on June 28, 1949; the two roads were dead on January 7, 1952.

(c)The two-months are the two-month implicits, and the defendant MOcheon is the two-months, and the two-months are the two-months, respectively.

(D) On June 17, 1985, the Defendant Yang-ju, Yang-ju and Yang-ju were sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership on October 15, 1992, while the Defendant had not purchased a forest of KRW 41,534 square meters on December 20, 197, he was issued a false guarantee and a written confirmation to the effect that he actually purchased it on December 20, 197, and actually owns it at present, pursuant to Article 15824 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3562) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name on June 17, 1985; on the other hand, on October 15, 1992, on the grounds that both technologies were invalid for the above ownership transfer registration, the court ruled that the above Defendant Yang-ju and Yang-ju's heir against the above Defendant Yang-ju and Yang-soo were revoked 19293.

(2) Determination:

The registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be completed by lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act and consistent with the substantive relationship. Therefore, the person who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable to assert and prove the reversal of the presumption. However, when a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, is forged, is false, or substantial contents are proven to the extent that the substantial contents are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed. In this case, the degree of false proof, such as a letter of guarantee, etc., should not be the degree of conviction of a judge (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da4902, Mar. 11, 1997).

(2) According to the above special measures, the grounds for registration of ownership transfer and its date shall be deemed to be based on the contents of the guarantee document and the confirmation document, which is the cause of the registration. Therefore, in making each of the above registrations, it is presumed that the two standards and five other persons purchase the forest land of this case from both silents, etc. on October 1, 1957, and the defendants purchase 1/6 shares of the forest of this case from the long path around October 1947, and the two standards were indirectly donated 1/6 shares of the forest of this case from the two parties, and the two methods were consistent with the above guidelines for registration of ownership transfer from the 1/6th of the forest of this case, and the two methods were consistent with the above guidelines for registration of ownership transfer from the 1936th of the forest of this case, which are the basis for the above 1/6th of the 1936th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 197th of the forest of this case.

Therefore, with respect to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares completed in the name of the defendant Yang Jong-nam and the defendant Kim Yong-Nam and the defendant association's establishment of mortgage is in conformity with the actual relation, unless there is any assertion or proof from the defendants, the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares shall be deemed as the registration of invalidity of cause. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares shall be deemed as the registration of invalidity of cause, unless there is any assertion or proof from the defendants, and the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares shall be deemed as the registration of invalidity of cause, and the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares made in accordance with the order of Paragraph 1 of this Article and the registration of establishment of mortgage of the defendant Kim Jong-nam and the defendant association shall also be deemed as the registration of invalidity of cause. Thus, the plaintiff shall have the obligation to cancel each of the above registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares, the registration of ownership of each of the above defendant Kim Jong-nam, Yang-ju, understanding, Yang-jin, Yang-jin, Yangyang, Yangyang, Yang-soo, Yang-ho, Yang.

C. Determination as to the defendants' defense

(1) Determination as to the assertion that registration conforms to substantive relations is registered

In light of the above facts, the defendants were unable to purchase and sell shares in the above 7-year forest land or registered the transfer of ownership pursuant to the above special measures for 1-year forest land. The defendant's remaining shares in the above 6-year forest land's 6-year forest land's 7-year forest land's 6-2 forest land's 6-2 forest land's 9-7 forest land's 9-7 forest land's 6-2 forest land's 9-7 forest land's 9-6 forest land's 17-6 forest land's 6-6 forest land's 9-7 forest land's 17-6 forest land's 6-17 forest land's 6-2 forest land's 9-6 forest land's 6-1 forest land's 6-6 forest land's 9-1 forest land's 6-1 forest land's 6-2 forest land's 6-2 forest land's 197 forest land's 2 forest land's 1.

(2) Determination on the assertion of prescriptive acquisition

(A) On September 23, 1971, the Defendant occupied the forest land of this case for ten (10) years from September 23, 1971, after completing the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case under the Act on Special Measures, and the acquisition by prescription was completed on September 23, 1981, and as such, for twenty (20) years from the date the forest land of this case was registered under the name of the Defendant, four (4) and four (4) and the heir of the two (4) were succeeded to and officially and openly, and thus, the statute of limitations for possession was completed on September 23, 191, the Defendant’s association asserts that the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case was valid on September 23, 191, since the ownership transfer of the forest of this case was succeeded to the forest of this case, and thus, each of the above registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case is not valid on each of the above parties’ respective claims for the registration of ownership transfer.

(B) We examine the following facts: (a) The period of prescription for the acquisition of the registry is the acquisition of ownership at the time when the person who registered as the owner of the real estate occupies the real estate in good faith and with no negligence for ten (10) years; and (b) if the registration for the transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is made by a false certificate of guarantee and a false certificate of confirmation, the possession of the owner of the registration of the real estate shall be deemed to be negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da50578 delivered on April 9, 196). As seen earlier, since the registration for the transfer of ownership in the forest of this case was based on a false certificate of guarantee and a false certificate of confirmation, even if he occupied the forest of this case, it cannot be said that there was no negligence in the possession; and (c) the defendants' assertion based on the premise that the period of prescription for the acquisition of the registry has expired against four (4) persons other than the

(c)In addition, with respect to the defendants' assertion of the prescription of possession, there is no reason to believe any provision of No. 6-2, No. 21-9, No. 26, and No. 26, which correspond to the provision of No. 6-2, No. 6-2, No. 21-9, and No. 26, as to whether the defendant Yoon-Nam, et al. has occupied the forest of this case from September 23, 1971, which is the defendants' four and four and his inheritors of the two-terms.

Rather, the above 1, 20, 32, 45, 48, 5, 10-1, 7, 9, 9, 9, 10-3, 6, 9, 9, 10-1, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 7, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 1, 9, 1, 9, 1, 9, 1, 1, 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 9, 1, 1,2, 3,

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, since the defendant's two criteria, Yang-ju, Yang-ju, understanding, Yang-jin, Yang-jin, Yang-jin, Yang-jin, Yang Chang-J, Yang Chang-J, Yang Chang-J, Yang Chang-J, Yang-J, Yang Jong-J, Yang-J, Yang-J, Yang Jong-J, Yang-J, Yang-ho, Yang-J, Yangyang-J, Yang-J, and Yang-J, as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, have a duty to implement the registration of transfer of ownership, and the registration of cancellation, and each registration procedure of establishment of a mortgage as stated in the above order, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair in part, and the judgment of the court below is modified as above.

Judges Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Judge)