The judgment below

Among them, the parts against Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D are reversed, and this part of the case is the District Court of the Speaker.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 8(2) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) provides that “When the State or a local government intends to obtain a certificate from the competent authority for the registration of ownership preservation of State-owned or public real estate or to apply for the registration of ownership transfer, the certificate may not be attached to the certificate under Article 10(2).” In light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Real Estate and the institutional purport of the guarantee certificate, the above provision applies to cases where the State or the local government applies for the issuance of a certificate for the real estate which is not yet registered as the State or the local government.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da38847 delivered on February 27, 1996. The court below determined that, in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Act on Special Measures, the presumption of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant Goyang-si, which was completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Special Measures, cannot be said to have broken down on the ground that the defendant Goyang-si did not attach a guarantee certificate while applying for issuance of a certificate of high-market as to the land prior to the merger of this case, and that the defendant Goyang-si did not submit documents or materials which are the cause of the acquisition of ownership as of the present market price, it

In addition, with respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the cases where the person entitled to make a registration and the issuing authority of a written confirmation coincide with each other, the registration cannot guarantee the authenticity of the written confirmation, and thus, the presumption of registration under the Act on Special Measures for Completion on the basis thereof is broken, on the ground that Article 8(2) of the Act on Special Measures provides that the State or a local government may not attach a certificate of guarantee because it is guaranteed the authenticity when applying