Whether the presumption of registration is broken solely on the ground that a person who has completed registration pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate has a different assertion from that stated in a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation concerning the cause of acquisition (negative

Articles 6, 7, and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Law No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992), Articles 6, 7, and 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da71388, 71395 Decided November 22, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 129) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189 Decided April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 828) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29835 Decided February 23, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 479)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Chang-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Gyeong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Na17378 Decided February 15, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) shall be presumed to be registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of registration of ownership or registration of transfer shall not be reversed unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed by the Special Measures Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that it is not lawfully registered due to any other reason. Here, false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantive contents of the change of rights are inconsistent with the truth. Even if a person who completed registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate claims that he/she acquired a right according to another reason for acquisition, if he/she asserts that he/she acquired a right according to the said other reason for acquisition, it shall be presumed that the registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership cannot be completed as of the date on which he/she could not be subject to the Act on Special Measures, 2000, 201, 305, unless there are any special reasons for 200.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant guaranteed that "the defendant purchased and owned each forest of this case from the non-party 1 on December 25, 1983" and based on the letter of guarantee written by the non-party 2, 3, and 4 and the confirmation written based thereon completed the registration of preservation of ownership or the registration of transfer of ownership for each forest of this case pursuant to the Act on Special Measures on November 24, 1994. Furthermore, the court below determined to the purport that the non-party 1 had already died on October 11, 1950, and the defendant was not aware of the acquisition cause of each forest of this case in the process of the lawsuit of this case, unlike the above letter of guarantee, the non-party 5 loaned 30,000 won to the non-party 6 on around 1969 through 1970, and that the non-party 6 did not know the above loan and transferred the ownership of each forest of this case to the non-party 5 in the form of payment or sale.

The above judgment of the court below is ultimately justified in light of the above legal principles and records, even though the defendant asserted the causes of acquisition different from the causes of acquisition of each forest of this case stated in the letter of guarantee of this case, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of each registration of this case was broken. However, considering the circumstances in its reasoning, the defendant's assertion of the above other causes of acquisition was proved to suspect that it is not true, and the above conclusion of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles and records.

Therefore, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption power of registration completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s assertion on the acquisition by prescription and the acquisition by prescription for the registration of each forest of this case. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, this part of the lower judgment is just and acceptable. In so doing, it is not recognized that there is an error of law such

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)