(a) Where the estimated history of registration of preservation of ownership made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land and its estimated capacity are destroyed;

(b) The case holding that in the registration of preservation of ownership under the name of Gap pursuant to the same Act, the guarantor, without knowledge of the details of the transfer of rights, such as the purchase by Gap, was prepared and awarded a guarantee that "A is de facto owner," and if the circumstances alleged by Gap cannot be acknowledged, the presumption of the registration of preservation of ownership could have broken down;

A. As to the forest land, the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, effective) even if there is another owner before the registered titleholder, such registration shall be presumed to be in accordance with the substantive legal relationship established in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the same Act. However, if it is recognized that the registration has been made by a letter of guarantee or a confirmation that the substantial contents on the reason of the alteration of rights are inconsistent with

B. The case holding that, in the registration of preservation of ownership under the name of Gap under the same Act, the guarantor was prepared with a guarantee that "A" was "the de facto owner" without confirming the purchase by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's father or the transfer of his rights, although he was completely unaware of the facts of the purchase by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's father or the transfer of his rights, and Gap was asserted that the former owner of the forest and the former owner of the forest had supported the removal of the grave at the time of the removal of the grave, and that he donated the entire forest in return for the donation and purchased it from the above additional manager and donated

(a)Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Law No. 2111, Lapse),

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu2928 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1703) (Gong1991, 67) Decided November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 67) 91Da1475 Decided December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 771). Supreme Court Decision 91Da5709 Decided April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1478)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 90Na1978 delivered on May 30, 1991

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, on November 25, 1970 with respect to the forest of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, on the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership on November 25, 1970, since there is no dispute between the parties, the above registration in the name of the defendant is presumed to be a valid registration. The plaintiff was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1. On June 12, 1942, the plaintiff was succeeded to the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 3 on December 30, 1945, and the above non-party 3 donated to the plaintiff on September 27, 1989, on the ground that the defendant did not purchase it, and the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the above registration of preservation of ownership on behalf of the above non-party 3, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership was made in accordance with the procedure of title 1 and 4.

2. As to the forest land, the registration of preservation of ownership has been made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Forest Ownership, even if there is another owner before the registered titleholder, such registration shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship completed in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the same Act. However, if it is deemed that the substantive contents on the grounds of alteration of rights have been made by a letter of guarantee or a confirmation that is inconsistent with the truth, such presumption shall be reversed.

3. According to the testimony of the witness, the defendant did not know the purchase of the forest of this case in his name and did not know about the purchase of the forest of this case. However, the defendant knew that there was a grave for the defendant, and the non-party 8 managed the forest of this case, and thus, the defendant's right to guarantee the forest of this case was not proved by the non-party's establishment on the ground of this case's forest of this case. Although the defendant's purchase of the forest of this case or his transfer of rights was not known, the guarantee of "the actual owner" should be deemed to be a false guarantee, and it is difficult for the non-party 1 to recognize that the non-party 1 provided the non-party 9 with the defendant's assistance to the non-party 1 for the sale of the forest of this case's forest of this case's original forest of this case's 9 years old forest of this case to the non-party 1 for the sale of the forest of this case's forest of this case's 9 years old forest of this case's title.

4. If evidence relations and the defendant's answer are the same as above, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is based on a letter of guarantee, the substantial contents of which are inconsistent with the truth, and its presumption power is broken. The defendant must cancel the registration unless he asserts and proves that it is valid in accordance with the substantive relations.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the presumption of ownership preservation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is a ground to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)