The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of the Gu

The registration of preservation of ownership under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland (Act No. 1657 of Sep. 17, 1964, invalidation) shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, which has been made in accordance with due procedures prescribed in the same Act. In order to realize its presumption power, the registration of preservation of ownership under the same Act shall be presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and it shall be proved that the certificate of guarantee under the same Act, which is the cause of the change of the land cadastre of the title holder, has been false or forged, and that the registration of preservation of ownership has not been duly made due to other reasons, and the fact

Article 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland (Act No. 1657 of Sep. 17, 1964), Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Oct. 8, 1991; Law No. 2678, Oct. 8, 1991; Law No. 2035, Oct. 8, 1991; Law No. 2007, Oct. 28, 199)

Plaintiff-Appellant et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na38283 delivered on July 22, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the records of this case, the court below is just in finding that the registration of preservation of ownership in the deceased non-party 1 on the land of this case was made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland (No. 1657), and there is no error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence.

In addition, registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland is presumed to be a registration conforming to the substantive legal relationship which was made in accordance with the due procedure under the same Act, and in order to realize the presumption capacity, the above guarantee certificate and confirmation document under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership should be proved that the registration of preservation of ownership was not made lawfully in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership, etc. for other reasons, regardless of the falsity or forgery of the certificate or other reasons, and the fact that there was a separate person in charge of the pertinent land does not lose the above presumption capacity merely because it was revealed that there was a separate person in charge of the pertinent land, (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 8Da2928, Oct. 13, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 8Da29115, Nov. 28, 198; Supreme Court Decision 91Da4874, Oct. 8, 191).

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)