(a) Whether the presumption power of registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Forest Land is reversed where the former registration should be cancelled because the former registration person is an unentitled person (affirmative)

B. Whether it is possible to recognize the completion of prescription by voluntarily selecting the starting point of counting the prescriptive acquisition for land with no change in its owner (affirmative)

A. Although ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the registration of ownership transfer is also based on the succession of ownership from the former registration titleholder, and the letter of guarantee and written confirmation also guarantee or confirmation of the fact of succession acquisition. Therefore, if the former registration titleholder is an unentitled person, and the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled as the invalidation of the cause, the presumption of such registration should be reversed.

(b) In cases of claiming the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of land with no change of the owner, the period of prescription for the possession may be quoted if it is confirmed that the period of prescription has elapsed based on evidence between places where the starting point of starting the possession

A. Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land (Law No. 211, Lapse) Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 245 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 78Da2117 decided Oct. 16, 1979 (Gong1979, 12302)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The number of Defendants, 5 others, including the Honghae Saz. and 5 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Daegu District Court Decision 89Na7489 delivered on May 17, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

The issue is that the ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. This presumption shall not be applied to the case where there is no evidence that the certificate of guarantee and confirmation document under the same Act are false or forged, or that it is not legitimate due to other reasons. However, it is the reason that the ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land has been acquired by succession from the former registration holder. Since the certificate of guarantee and confirmation document are also the guarantee or confirmation of the fact of acquisition by succession, if the former registration holder is an unentitled person, and the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled as the cause of the invalidation, it shall be natural that the presumption of registration should be reversed.The Supreme Court precedents differ from the case, and the purport of the decision is different from that of the case.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

In light of the records, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is examined as follows. The forest of this case is originally owned by the defendant's species and registered the preservation of ownership in the name of the non-party's name. The forest of this case is originally owned by the defendant's species, which was held in title by having the preservation of ownership under the name of the non-party's name. The non-party's regular loans the amount of money yet to be borrowed from the non-party's regular loans, but it was impossible to repay it, and the above regular loans were made in the above regular loans on July 15, 193, and thereafter, the transfer of ownership was made in the above regular loans after the non-party's assistance was received before the above regular loans were born, but the above regular loans were not completed, so the above regular loans were deceased. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the facts against the rules of evidence cannot be justified, since there is no evidence to find that the registration of transfer of ownership in the above two names is valid in the defendant's substantive relation.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The court below rejected as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties on the forest of this case that the Defendants’ advance funeral had been installed in the range of 6,7 days; (b) if the Defendants’ advance funeral had collected the entire purport of the pleading from each testimony of the credit species such as the witness Kim Yong-ju, the witness of the court below, and the witness of the court of the trial (excluding the portion rejected after the witness testimony of the court of the court below); (c) around 1947, the head of the information has been managing the above advance funeral funeral which was installed in the forest of this case; and (d) thereafter, according to his entrustment, the non-party Kim Yong-ju managed the said grave; (c) the fact that the above Kim Yong-ju managed the said grave by entrustment, such as the defendant Jong-ju, and the defendants had been described in the above grave every year; (d) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the entire forest of this case was occupied in the entire forest of this case during the period of his allegation; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was no evidence that part of the defendant Lee Jong-ok's evidence acquisition.

After all, the court below recognized that the above situation was well-grounded, information storage, defendant's emotional interference, regular cargo, and the above Kim Yong-ju's assistance team entrusted by them were only managed by the defendants' 6,7 seedlings in the forest of this case, but not managed by the forest of this case, and determined that the management of the grave of this case cannot be deemed to have occupied the entire forest of this case.

According to the records, the defendants have been continuously occupying the forest of this case since they entrusted the title to the ancestor to the ancestor to the ancestor to be the defendant's ancestor to manage the forest of this case. On July 15, 193, although the defendant had been arbitrarily disposed of to the plaintiff's ancestor to the regular ancestor of this case and registered in his name, he had restored the registration name from the regular ancestor of this case on February 14, 1947, and held the title trust in both of the defendant's grave of this case (the defendant's testimony was executed on December 8, 1989). According to the reasoning that the defendant's testimony was rejected by the court below, the defendant's testimony was in accordance with the law of Kim Yong-ju's net and the fact that the defendant's testimony of this case had been rejected for the above 8-year forest of this case to the defendant ancestor of this case, and the defendant's testimony of this case to the defendant's ancestor of this case to the defendant's 7-year forest of this case to the defendant ancestor of this case.

On the other hand, among the testimony of the court below witness Kim Jong-chul's testimony, there is a portion of testimony that "the regular member has been in charge of the forest management", which is the plaintiff's predecessor, but it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff has occupied the forest of this case because it is difficult to view that the above fact that the defendant continued to manage the forest of this case upon the request of the clan was liquidated a consignment relationship with the clan, and was managed for the regular member upon the request of the regular member who newly acquired ownership, because it is unclear whether it can be viewed that the plaintiff had occupied the forest of this case, and there is no other material to deem that the plaintiff occupied the forest of this case.

Moreover, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 22, 198 when 41 or more years passed since February 14, 1947 when the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the head of information office, and on August 22, 198. As such, there is doubt as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that he succeeded to the instant forest and field, and whether he did not have been in possession management, on the ground that there was no circumstance as to the fact that the Plaintiff neglected the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the Defendant, etc. for a long time and the possession management for the clan such as the above Kim Yong-ju, etc.

The plaintiff's possession of the forest of this case, which is one of the opposing interested parties, is not recognized, while the evidence cited by the court below does not include any special circumstances that make it difficult to believe the defendant's possession of the forest of this case even during the evidence admitted by the court below, it is against the rules of evidence that the defendant's possession of the forest of this case is rejected, and the quoted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it. The forest of this case is erroneous in the rules of evidence. The forest of this case can be accepted only when the period of prescription expires by evidence as long as the plaintiff's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's transfer of the forest of this case has not been changed (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da2117, Oct. 16, 197; 8Da2763, Jan. 25, 199

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)