[1] The presumption of registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Land Ownership

[2] In a case where the other party asserts the cancellation of a title trust due to the absence of a transaction fact stated in the certificate of guarantee [1] In a case where the other party asserts the cancellation of a title trust, whether the certificate of guarantee is false (negative)

[3] Whether the subject of registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land is limited to the forest actually transferred due to the juristic act done before January 1, 1960 (negative)

[1] The registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, effective) is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedure under the same Act, and thus, it shall be presumed to have been consistent with the substantive relationship. Therefore, even though the person who filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable to assert and prove the reversal of presumption to the person who filed the lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration, if there has been proof to suspect that the other party’s substantive entries in the guarantee certificate or written confirmation that

[2] As to the assertion that a person who seeks to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership did not sell it as stated in the guarantee document concerning the reason for the registration of transfer of ownership made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership, even though the registered titleholder under the same Act merely denies his claim and argues that he would cancel the registration of transfer of ownership while cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership without just denying his claim, it cannot be deemed that the above guarantee document is false on its sole basis.

[3] The purport of Article 3 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land is not limited to the registration which can be completed before January 1, 1960 under the relevant Act, but the acquisition and loss of real rights due to a juristic act before January 1, 1960, which is the enforcement date of the Civil Act, can be registered under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land, notwithstanding Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act that the effect shall be lost if the registration is not completed within six years after the enforcement date of the Civil Act, and therefore, Article 7 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land cannot be registered unless there is an objection under the provisions of Article 7 of the same Act among those actually transferred due to a juristic act conducted before and after January 1, 1960, which was enforced by June 20, 1969.

[1] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land; Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land; Article 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 3 and 7 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land; Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da47253 delivered on March 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 1394) / [1/3] Supreme Court Decision 86Da3493 delivered on November 25, 1986 (Gong1987, 98), Supreme Court Decision 93Da34374 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3078) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da31804 delivered on January 19, 193 (Gong193, 724), Supreme Court Decision 93Da7143 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2760), Supreme Court Decision 193Da319549 delivered on March 194, 195 (Gong1994, Supreme Court Decision 97Da319794 delivered on March 195, 1994).

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 34 others (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim In-con et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na31469 delivered on September 14, 1995

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is difficult to find that the above portion of shares was registered under the name of the defendant 1, 2, 5, 7, 11 through 14, 16, 25 through 30, and the non-party 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, etc.") in accordance with the above special title trust registration under the name of the defendant 1 and the above special title trust registration under the name of the defendant 1, because it is hard to find that the above portion of shares was registered under the special title trust registration under the above special title trust registration under the name of the non-party 1 and the above special title trust registration under the special title trust registration under the law of this case was not entered in the above special title trust registration under the above special title trust registration under the name of the non-party 1, the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 were not registered under the above special title trust registration under the special title trust registration under the law of this case. Thus, the remaining part of the defendant's ownership registration under the above special title trust registration under the defendant 1 and the defendant 3.

2. Judgment of party members

A. Judgment on the fifth ground for appeal

In light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1 under the above special assistance act, and according to the evidence No. 1, Defendant 2 can be recognized as having completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the general registration procedure, which was received on July 31, 1971 by Samcheon District Court Samcheon District Court No. 7940, August 24, 1954, by Defendant 2, pursuant to the records No. 7940, which was received on July 31, 1971. The person who seeks the cancellation of the registration must assert and prove the fact that the registration should be invalidated by the false guarantee document under the special assistance act, and there was no other assertion and evidence as to the grounds for invalidation of the registration. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding that the plaintiff's claim against Defendant 2 should be dismissed, and thus, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Determination on the first and second grounds

Inasmuch as registration under the Special Cases Act is completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act and is presumed to be in accordance with the substantive relationship, the person who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable for the assertion and proof of the presumption reversal. However, in a case where it has been proven to the extent that the other party is the person who is false with the substantive contents of a guarantee or a written confirmation, which forms the basis for the registration, or that the substantive contents of the statement are not true, the presumption of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da31804, Jan. 19, 1993; 93Da7143, Sept. 14, 1993; 93Da57490, Mar. 11, 1994; 94Da39116, Feb. 10, 1995).

However, as stated in the above special provisions regarding the reason for the transfer registration of ownership under the above special provisions, the plaintiff alleged that the non-party 1, the deceased person, except the defendant 2, did not sell it to the defendant et al. (hereinafter the defendant et al., the defendant et al., the defendant et al., except the defendant 2). The defendant et al. merely denied his claim, and further, the defendant et al. alleged that the forest of this case was held under title trust for convenience of the above non-party 1. The above guarantee cannot be deemed to have been reversed since it cannot be deemed that the above guarantee was false unless it was stated in the above special provisions regarding the transfer registration of ownership under the above special provisions concerning the above special provisions concerning the defendant 1, 492. The purport of Article 3 of the above special provisions concerning the special provisions concerning the transfer registration under the above special provisions concerning the defendant 19 cannot be viewed as being effective before the date of entry into force of the above special provisions concerning the transfer registration under Article 9 of the Civil Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, etc. for the special investigation registration shall not be deemed legitimate registration because the letter of guarantee or confirmation under the special investigation law, which caused the registration, is false or not subject to the special investigation, and thus, the registration under the name of the defendant, etc. for the special investigation registration and the remaining defendants' ownership transfer should be cancelled unless there are special circumstances, and rejected the defendants' assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the report as a defense, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption power of the special investigation registration but by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by bearing the burden of proof as to the fact that the registration conforms to the substantive relations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendants among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)