[1] In the real estate sale certificate, entry of the registration number, order of registration, registration system, etc. under Articles 35(1) and 60(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and in the case where the registration office affixs its seal, whether registration is recognized as having been completed according to the registration number and priority number stated in the sale certificate (affirmative in principle)

[2] The case where the presumption of the authenticity of an official document under Article 356(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is reversed

[3] In the case of documents comprised of private documents and official documents by adding a registration system to a sales certificate, etc. by the registry office, whether the authenticity of the sales certificate itself, which is part of the private document, is presumed or recognized (negative)

[1] Articles 35(1) and 60(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act provide that when applying for registration, a document proving grounds for registration shall be submitted; when the registration management is completed, a registration number, the number of application forms, the date of registration (number of copies), the number of copies of application form, the order number, and the registration number (registration system) shall be stated in the document or duplicate of application form proving grounds for registration; and when the registration is completed, a registration number, the registration number (number of copies), the priority number, and the registration number (registration system) shall be returned to the registered titleholder. Therefore, if a sale certificate proves that the registration number, the registration number, the order of registration, and the registration system under the above provision, and the fact that the registration is sealed by the registration titleholder, it shall not be deemed that the registration is submitted in writing proving the grounds for registration at the time of application for registration, and that the registration is returned to the registered titleholder, barring any special circumstance.

[2] Article 356(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when it is acknowledged that a public official is prepared in the course of performing his/her duties according to the method and purport of preparing documents, such presumption shall be presumed as a genuine official document. However, if there is any counter-proof that there are special circumstances such as forgery or alteration, such presumption shall be broken

[3] The establishment of the portion of a sales certificate itself, which is a part of a private document, shall not be presumed or recognized on the ground that a document consisting of a private document and an official document, different from a notarized document, is recognized because the entry of a registration system (registration system) is added to a sales certificate, etc. by the registry office.

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 356 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 356 (1), 357, and 358 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da21953 delivered on October 22, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2405) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63166 delivered on February 13, 2004 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 88Da5836 delivered on November 13, 2008 (Gong1989, 1453)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Song-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Na57455 decided November 17, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gu Government District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 35(1) and 60(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act provide that when applying for registration, documents evidencing grounds for registration shall be submitted; when the registration management is completed, registration numbers, the number of applications, the date of completion, the number of copies of applications, the priority number and the registration system shall be stated in the document or duplicate of applications proving grounds for registration; and when the registration is completed, the registration number, the registration number, the registration number and the registration number shall be stated, and the registration number shall be returned to the person entitled to registration by deceiving the seal of the registry (registration). Therefore, if the sale certificate proves that the registration number, the registration order, the registration system, and the fact that the registry seal is affixed, it shall not be deemed that the document evidencing the grounds for registration was submitted at the time of application for registration and that the registration was returned to the person entitled to registration. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it shall be recognized that the registration number and priority number of the recorded real estate has been completed as to such document (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1953, Oct. 222, 199999).

Meanwhile, Article 356(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a public official is deemed to have prepared in the course of performing his/her duties in accordance with the method and purport of preparation of a document, such presumption shall be presumed to be a genuine public document. However, if there is any reflective circumstance such as forgery or alteration, such presumption is broken (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da63166, Feb. 13, 2004; 2008Da40311, Nov. 13, 2008; 2008Da40311, Nov. 13, 2008, etc.). A document composed of a private document and a public document is presumed to have been established as a part of a sale certificate, which is the part of a private document, different from a notarized document, and thus, cannot be presumed to have been established or acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu5836, Sept. 12, 1989).

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

A. On November 21, 1999, Nonparty 1, who was put to death by the Plaintiffs, died, and the Plaintiffs, who were their children, jointly succeeded to each of the 1/2 shares.

B. Seven parcels of land (a total of 206,625 square meters; hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) located in the same Ri, including 14,580 square meters, prior to the Gangwon-do Iron-gun ( Address 1 omitted), are land located inside the Civilian Access Control Line within the Associate Zone, and the register and cadastral record were destroyed due to the column of 6,25 square meters, and cadastral record was restored as of April 29, 1980 or as of February 1, 1986, but the land was unregistered as the owner’s unclaimed land.

C. The sales certificate of each real estate of this case (hereinafter “the sales certificate of this case”) is a certificate that Nonparty 1 purchases each of the real estate of this case from Nonparty 2 on June 26, 1945, in KRW 1,180. The left side of the sales certificate of this case includes the entry of “number of days”, “number of copies”, and “registration system” as rubber, and the date and number of copies are written within which the number of copies are indicated, and the official seal of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the branch office of the Kusung District Court is affixed. The revenue stamp is attached to the upper right side of the sales certificate, and the left side is written as “Non-party 3 of the judicial clerk No. 186, No. 146, the back real estate display column of the sales certificate is written in the back real estate display column of each real estate of this case, and the registration number and registration number are written in the order below each real estate display.

3. In full view of the evidence in its holding and the following circumstances, the lower court determined that each of the instant real estate was owned by Nonparty 1, the heir of Nonparty 1, since it can be recognized that Nonparty 1 purchased each of the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

A. On March 5, 1943, the appraiser of the court below appraised the sale certificate of this case as a method of comparison and analysis with the sale certificate of Gangwon-do ("written evidence submitted; hereinafter referred to as "documents subject to comparison") with the official seal of the office of the main district court in Sungsung District Court, which is signed on March 5, 1943, stating the purport of the registration system, and the official seal of the office of the main district court in Sungsung District Court was affixed. As a result of appraisal, the marks artificially altered on the sale certificate of this case were not observed, and as a result of geological examination of the used paper, the current paper is almost not used for special purposes, and is printed on the printed printing method, which was mainly used prior to the 1970s, and the seal affixed on the sale certificate of this case had been dried with the seal affixed with the seal affixed with the comparison document of this case, and thus, it was difficult to view the above appraisal certificate as a document subject to comparison with each of the above appraisal documents of this case.

B. Nonparty 3, who prepared the instant sales certificate, was confirmed to be a judicial secretary who had been working in the jurisdiction of the Gyeongsung District Court.

C. Although the area of the instant real estate stated in the instant sales certificate differs from the area of the cadastral restoration, it appears that the instant sales certificate was prepared before the cadastral restoration, it is difficult to view that the instant sales certificate was recently forged for the instant lawsuit.

4. However, such determination by the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, there is a doubt that the instant sales certificate and registration certificate were forged.

(1) Article 1 of the Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's 22, which was enacted on November 3, 1945 and enforced on November 4, 1945, provides that the Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun's Gun.

(2) In the case of each of the instant real estates listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 of the lower judgment, the area for cadastral recovery based on the surveying source map prepared under the Land Survey Order, which is the Japanese occupation, is 18,418 square meters. However, the sale certificate of this case is written with approximately 3,371 square meters ( approximately 11,143 square meters), and there is a considerable difference in the area.

(3) The instant certificate of sale is written in KRW 1,180, and according to the stamp tax law, which was in force at the time, only 50 foot stamps should be attached to the instant certificate of sale. Both the first and second instances appraiser expressed their opinions that there was a trace of the re-ttachingment on the said certificate.

(4) On December 14, 1926, according to the plaintiffs' assertion, it seems that Non-party 1 purchased a piece of land located in a iron farm with at least 100 km away from the place on June 26, 1945, when he was 18 years of age, 206,625 square meters or more from the place on which he was 18 years of age.

B. On the other hand, the court below should have further examined the reasons stated in the sale certificate of this case in detail as follows: the reasons why the address of the non-party 1 was indicated in the area of the Cheongju-Gun, the area of the already restored real estate and the area of the real estate stated in the sale certificate of this case; the reason why the area of the real estate stated in the sale certificate of this case is considerably different; whether the non-party 1 purchased each of the real estate of this case; whether the non-party 1 was holding farmland in the purchase of the real estate of this case; and whether the non-party 1 had the sale certificate of this case and the reason why the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the death of the non-party 1 and about about 15 years.

Nevertheless, solely based on its stated reasoning, the lower court recognized the authenticity of the instant sales certificate and the registration certificate, and determined that Nonparty 1 acquired ownership by purchasing each of the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 as evidence and completing the registration of ownership transfer. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the formation of the authenticity of documents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)