Where the registration of transfer of ownership via a forged registration application document complies with the substantive change of rights, the validity of such registration.

Even if the registration is made by the forged registration application document, it shall be valid if the registration conforms to the substantive legal relationship.

Man-Class (Attorney Cha Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Kim Inn Jae-in

Seoul High Court Decision 64Da3 delivered on January 28, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat weak due to its explanation of its reason, the part of the statement in the theory of the highest salary class of the witness adopted as one of comprehensive evidence was false and it was impossible to make a final judgment of conviction for reasons other than defect of evidence, even though there were grounds for retrial in the final judgment, the judgment of the court below was made on behalf of the defendant, and according to the whole purport of the statement of both the witness and the pleading, since the judgment of the court below was concluded on behalf of the defendant, the registration procedure of transfer of the ownership of the real estate in the name of the defendant was just, and the result of the final judgment is not just, and it cannot be interpreted as a conclusion of the judgment that the final judgment does not dismiss the original judgment. The court below rejected the evidence as consistent with the plaintiff's argument, and adopted the purport of the testimony and pleading of both the witness real names above, and judged that the original judgment was a fact-finding as mentioned above, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below as to the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding.

The issue may not be any one or adopted.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

If the registration and the actual change of rights coincide with the registration, it shall be a valid registration, and even if the application for registration of ownership transfer is made under the above Article, so long as the person who is a real owner of ownership is a real owner, it shall not be deemed invalid registration in accordance with the current real right status, and even if the registration titleholder does not coincide with the substantive change of rights in terms of the registration of ownership transfer, it shall be deemed as a valid registration in accordance with the substantive relationship as long as the person who is a real owner of ownership

The ground of appeal No. 2.4

Even if the original judgment, which rejected the false statement in family litigation and the original judgment, was contrary to the rules of evidence, was explained above, the fact that the non-party purchased the real estate from the plaintiff as the defendant's representative is confirmed by the original judgment and the registration of the transfer of the ownership in the name of the defendant is a valid registration consistent with the substantive alteration of rights, the above violation cannot be affected by the original judgment, which eventually leads to no reason to the conclusion of the original judgment.

As to ground of appeal No. 5

Even if the non-prosecution disposition on the No. 1 of the No. 1 was changed, it is merely that the judgment on the contents of the written evidence was adopted as evidence for fact-finding, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition on which the judgment on the contents of the written evidence was based, as well as the above explanation. As seen above, the final judgment on this case has a ground for retrial, but the result of the final judgment is justified, but there is a domestic violation in the reasoning of the original judgment on No. 1 of the No. 1 of the original judgment, which is not considered as the ground for retrial, but not as the result of the final judgment, even if there is a domestic

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)