The degree of proof to reverse the presumption power of registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer.

Since registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed in the same Act, it shall be presumed that the person who seeks the cancellation of the registration has the burden of proof to reverse the presumption actively, but when the other party has proved that the substantive contents, such as a letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, are false, or that the substantive contents are not true, it shall be deemed that the presumption of registration has been reversed. The degree of proof of falsity, such as such letter of guarantee, etc., should not be sufficient to the extent that the judge

Article 6 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Law No. 3562, Lapse)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na70917 delivered on October 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Ownership on April 2, 1985 as to the land of this case, and held that the above registration of ownership transfer is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive relationship. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration of ownership transfer is reversed because the plaintiff's ownership was based on a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation, which was originally owned by the non-party, the deceased's decedent, and the above registration of ownership transfer was reversed.

The registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, and therefore, it is presumed that the person who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration has the burden of proof to reverse the presumption actively. However, if the other party has proved that the substantive contents such as a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, are false or that the substantive contents are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of proof of the falsity of such a letter of guarantee, etc. shall not be sufficient to the extent of judge's conviction (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da5826, Oct. 26, 1993).

However, according to the records, on February 14, 1939, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the deceased on the above land. On April 2, 1985, Defendant 2 stated that "the guarantee that the above land is in fact acquired from the deceased on December 20, 1974" under the Act on Special Measures is a certificate to guarantee that "the above land is in fact acquired from the deceased on December 20, 1974," and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant 2 as above. In the investigation process of the related criminal case at issue as to whether the above letter of guarantee was false or not, Defendant 2 stated that he purchased the above land from the deceased and was fully aware of the registration process (see evidence No. 16-10 of the above evidence No. 16), and that the above statement was affixed to the guarantee certificate with the belief that the above content was not identical to that of Defendant 1's horse, and thus, Defendant 1 did not have any error in the law as to the above presumption that the above certificate was issued.

However, as a further determination, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion of this case by recognizing the fact that the defendant 1 was entrusted to the defendant 2, who acquired the above land by himself/herself, in return for the transfer of the money as requested by him/her to the non-party deceased who was the former owner by requesting that he/she remits money under the name of living expenses, etc. from his/her former owner, along with his/her request, the court below's determination that the transfer of ownership under the above Act on Special Measures is a valid registration that conforms to the substantive relationship, and it is just to recognize the above fact-finding of the court below in light of all the evidence shown in the records, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit.

Ultimately, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant 2 with respect to the above land would be dismissed, and therefore, the lower court’s error of misapprehending the legal doctrine would have no effect on the result of the judgment, and thus, the argument is without merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

We examine the reasoning of the judgment of the court below based on the records. The fact finding of facts by the court below as to the point of the lawsuit is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or lack of reasoning due to the violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. Ultimately, we cannot accept it merely because it criticizes the preparation of evidence or the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)