Article 8 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Ownership

Article 8 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate provides that "where a person intends to obtain a confirmation from the competent authority of the registry in order to make a registration of ownership preservation or to apply for the registration of ownership transfer, he/she need not attach a guarantee certificate under Article 10 (2)." In light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate and the institutional purport of a guarantee certificate to attach a guarantor's guarantee certificate to the confirmation certificate to secure the authenticity of the real relation of the real estate at the time of application for the issuance of the certificate and the real relation of the real estate at the time of application for the issuance of the certificate, and the fact that the real estate in question falls under the scope of the application of the Act, this provision does not apply to the case where the State or a local government applies for the issuance of a confirmation certificate with respect to

Article 8 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Colonel-gun:

Changwon District Court Decision 92Na5588 delivered on June 17, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on July 27, 1981 that the registration of transfer of ownership completed in the name of the defendant on the ground of donation on March 3, 1973 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3094, the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate) was null and void. In order to invalidate the plaintiff's assertion, it should be proved that the letter of guarantee or written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. was falsely prepared or forged, or that the above registration was not made lawfully in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. on other grounds. In the case of the above registration, the above registration did not attach a certificate of guarantee at the time of issuance of confirmation under Article 8 (2) of the Act

Article 8(2) of the Special Measures Act provides that "where a person who has acquired State or public real estate from the State or a local government intends to obtain a confirmation from the competent authority in order to make a registration of initial ownership or to apply for a registration of ownership transfer, he/she need not attach a certificate under Article 10(2)." In light of the legislative purport of the Special Measures Act and the legislative purport of the letter of guarantee that is to attach a guarantor's guarantee to a confirmation application in order to secure the authenticity that the real legal relationship at the time of application for the issuance of the certificate and the real legal relationship at the time of application for the issuance of the certificate fall under the scope of the Act, the above provision is not applicable to the case where the State or the local government applies for the issuance of a confirmation certificate with respect to the real estate whose ownership is not yet registered as the State or the local government, such as the theory of lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the provision applies to the time of application for the issuance of a confirmation for the registration of ownership change (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6543, Feb. 14, 195).

In addition, according to the records, the judgment of the court below is just in the absence of evidence to deem that the certificate of this case was false or forged, and there is no other reason to prove that the above registration was conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed in the Act on Special Measures, so there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit or violation of the rules of evidence

Furthermore, even if examining the record, there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit in the court below's trial procedure, and as long as the above registration is legally made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act on Special Measures, it is presumed that the registration is in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, the remaining grounds of appeal to the effect that

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)