The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after the deadline).

Registration completed by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977) shall be presumed to be registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed by the said Act was false or forged.

Unless it is proved that the registration has not been duly made due to any other reason, the presumption of registration of ownership or registration of transfer shall not be broken, and the false letter of guarantee or confirmation here means a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantial contents of the changes in rights are inconsistent with the truth, unless it is proved that the registration has been duly made.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Special Measures Act permits the actual transferee of real estate to make a registration inconsistent with the process of the alteration of a right, the date of purchase, which is the cause of the acquisition of the right, is later than the date of death of the original owner or the former registration titleholder, or the entry of the name of the seller or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, is different from the actual one, or the entry of specific reason of the alteration

Even if so, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of legitimacy of the registration has been broken.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s determination that the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was based on a false letter of guarantee or a false confirmation is insufficient to recognize that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was based on the above legal principle and records is just and acceptable to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the instant case. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of the registration, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of the registration.