Where a title holder of real estate prior to the ownership contests the transfer of ownership to the title holder of real estate, the presumption of the transfer of ownership registration.

If the ownership transfer registration is completed due to a sale, if the former owner denies it and seeks to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer by claiming the invalidity of the grounds for registration, the former owner shall be liable to assert the invalidity and prove it.

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1778 delivered on October 23, 1967

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 76Na281 delivered on November 19, 1976

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the court below's decision, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim and held that the real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff, and the ownership transfer registration was made in its name, but the defendant purchased on April 5, 1950, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the defendant on March 29, 1965 is no dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff did not have the above sales fact. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant was a defect in the cause of resolution, the defendant purchased 270 square meters among the real estate, and the remaining 119Do38, the defendant purchased the real estate on May 4, 1957. Thus, in general, it is hard to see that the defendant's assertion that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the non-party 1 was invalid without any evidence to see that the non-party 2's assertion that the ownership transfer of the above real estate was in the name of the non-party 1, as stated in the court below's decision.

However, in the event that the transfer registration of ownership is made on the real estate in the name of the defendant due to sale such as the original sale, the defendant shall be presumed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the real estate in the name of the defendant due to a justifiable reason. Thus, in order for the plaintiff to deny it and to seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer by claiming the invalidity of the grounds for registration, the court below shall have the responsibility to assert and prove the facts constituting the invalidation thereof. However, on the contrary, the court below shall have the responsibility to prove that the defendant lawfully purchased the real estate in this case and acquired the ownership through the registration of transfer transfer of ownership in this case. Since there is no supporting material to support such assertion, the court below held that the plaintiff's claim should be accepted as it is because the defendant's assertion is not acceptable. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the burden of proof

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)