(a) Whether the registration of ownership preservation based on the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land is presumed to conform to the substantive legal relationship on the grounds of sale after the enforcement thereof;

B. If a registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the purchaser after the purchaser of the land from the original owner died, whether it is consistent with the substantive legal relationship by expressing the ownership of the heir

A. Since the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969, invalidation) has been enforced, it is apparent that the initial preservation of ownership based on the same Act was not possible by the procedure provided for in the same Act, and therefore, the presumption of registration that the preservation of ownership has been completed by lawful procedure, and that it is a registration that conforms to the legal relationship under the substantive law, should be deemed to be broken.

B. If it is recognized that the forest land was purchased from the original owner, even if the registration of ownership preservation was made after the buyer’s death, it shall be deemed valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, as it represents the ownership of the heir.

(a)Article 186(a) of the Civil Act: Article 3 and Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969). Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da4898 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1502)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na4225 delivered on March 17, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that since the forest of this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1 (the death of August 4, 1937) and it was solely inherited by the defendant 1, it was confirmed that the registration of preservation was made in the name of the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership, which was in force on September 29, 1970, and since the registration of transfer of ownership in the above non-party 2 was null and void, the registration of transfer of ownership in the above non-party 1 was completed in the name of the defendant 1 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, etc., which was in force on May 13, 1981 (Act No. 3094), the above registration of transfer is in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, it cannot be recognized that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed by a false guarantee or confirmation document

However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiff himself also purchased the forest land of this case from the defendant 1-around the end of June 21, 1969, which was enforced by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership, after June 21, 1969, at the end of December, 1969 (section 512, etc. of the record). Thus, it is obvious that the registration of preservation of ownership of the above non-party 2, which was made based on the above Act on Special Measures, could not be made by the procedure prescribed in the above Act on Special Measures, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the presumption of registration that the above registration was completed by lawful procedure and conforms to the legal relationship under the substantive Act is broken (refer to the original judgment of April 26, 191). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of registration made under the above Act on Special Measures.

However, the court below additionally recognized that the above non-party 2 purchased the forest of this case from defendant 1 on or around the end of December 1969 with a value equivalent to 10 households of rice and purchased the forest of this case. In light of the records, such fact-finding by the court below is reasonable and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. Thus, even if the registration of preservation of ownership of non-party 2 was made after the death of May 18, 1970, as the court below acknowledged, it should be deemed as valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship as it indicates the ownership of the plaintiff et al. as his heir, and therefore, the court below's judgment recognizing that the forest of this case is co-ownership of the plaintiff and other co-inheritors is just in its conclusion. The arguments are eventually without merit.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

The fact that the forest land of this case is owned by the plaintiff et al. as seen earlier, and that the transfer registration of ownership completed under the name of defendant 1 on May 13, 1981 in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of this case was duly confirmed by the court below, since the transfer registration of ownership in the above defendant 1 was completed on the basis of a false letter of guarantee and a confirmation even though there was no acquisition from the above non-party 2 or his successor (the defendant is also justified). Accordingly, the transfer registration of ownership in the above defendant 2 in the above defendant 1 is also null and void. Accordingly, the transfer registration of ownership in the above defendant 2's name should also be deemed null and void, and whether the defendant 2 believed that the defendant 1 is the legitimate owner and purchased the forest land of this case shall not affect the conclusion of the this case. It is without merit.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)