[1] The presumption of ownership preservation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and the degree of proof to reverse it

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that the presumption power of registration has been destroyed on the ground that the substantial contents of a guarantee, which served as the basis of registration of ownership preservation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, were proved to be not true

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 6 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 6 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da57490 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1185), Supreme Court Decision 94Da3916 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1307), Supreme Court Decision 95Da28601, 28618 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 50738 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 197Sang, 107Da11362 delivered on August 22, 1997) and Supreme Court en banc Decision 203Da5299 delivered on May 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 107Sang, 205Da13979 delivered on May 24, 1997).

U.S.

Kim Tae-tae (Law Firm Daegu, Attorneys Seo-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2004Na9334 Decided April 13, 2005

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

Even where it is proved that there is a separate person in charge of the land, the registration of ownership preservation of which has been completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 4502, the invalidation, and the "Special Measures Act"), such registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act and is presumed to have been registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. As such, if a party seeks to reverse such presumption, he/she must assert and prove that the letter of guarantee, which forms the basis of the registration, was forged or falsely prepared, is not a legitimate registration for any other reason. The degree of proof of the falsity of the letter of guarantee to reverse the presumption of real estate ownership registration is sufficient to prove that the substantial content of the statement is not true and that the judge’s conviction is not sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da4903, Apr. 13, 2001).

The court below acknowledged that the forest land of this case was unregistered on June 19, 1918 under the name of the non-party 1's owner, and that the plaintiff succeeded to the transfer of the forest of this case, and that the defendant completed the preservation registration in its name on December 28, 1994 in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Forest of this case, and that the preservation registration in the name of the defendant was completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Protection of the Forest of this case, and is presumed to be in accord with the substantive legal relationship. However, the guarantee certificate, which forms the basis for the preservation registration in the name of the defendant, is merely stated in the current state of right that the defendant was inherited from the non-party 1's father, and it is hard to find that the defendant had actually owned the forest of this case by inheritance from the non-party 2's father, and the guarantor who prepared the above guarantee certificate was not a legitimate owner of the forest of this case, without the knowledge of who sold the forest of this case, and that the plaintiff had prepared the above correction of the forest of this case and its contents.

In light of the above legal principles and records, all of the above facts finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning the presumption of completed registration under the Act on Special Measures

2. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the forest of this case from the defendant's defense that Kim Jong-seok purchased in 250,000 won from the representative of the non-party literature around May 1968 or that Kim Jong-seok occupied the forest of this case from the end of May 1968. In light of the records, the court below's decision is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)