Where the presumption power of registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer is reversed, and the degree of proof of falsity of a letter of guarantee

The presumption of registration made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3562, effective) is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed under the same Act, and thus, it is reasonable to assert and prove that the guarantee certificate or written confirmation under the above Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership, etc., which was the basis of the registration, was forged or falsely prepared, or that the registration was not duly registered for any other reason. However, if the other party proves that the substantial contents of the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, which was the basis of the registration, are false or that the substantial contents of the registration are not true, the presumption of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of conviction of the judge shall not be sufficient to prove the falsity of the guarantee certificate, etc.

Article 186 of the Civil Act; 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)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na6364 delivered on December 11, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Defendant 1’s attorney’s grounds of appeal and grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 3 are also examined.

Since a registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed in the same Act and thus, to reverse such presumption, it is necessary to assert and prove that a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate was forged or falsely prepared, or that such presumption was not duly registered for any other reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Da2928, Oct. 13, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 91Da47253, Mar. 27, 192; Supreme Court Decision 92Da8965, Jun. 23, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 87Da1312, Oct. 28, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da189731, Oct. 17, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da1974, Oct. 197, 1987).

However, in a case where the other party has proved that the substantive contents of a guarantee certificate or a written confirmation, which forms the basis for registration, are false, or that the substantive contents are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed. The degree of proof of falsity, such as a guarantee certificate, etc., shall not be sufficient to the extent that the judge convictions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da17938, Oct. 27, 1992; 92Da31804, Jan. 19, 1993; 92Da52870, May 11, 1993).

According to the records, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 1 from Nonparty 1 on January 2, 1970 on the forest shares in this case was issued with a written guarantee signed and sealed by Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4 as guarantor (Evidence 4-3) that Defendant 1 purchased the forest shares in this case from Nonparty 1 on January 2, 1970, and it is true that the above forest shares were owned by Nonparty 5, which was originally attached by Defendant 1, not the purchase of the above forest shares in this case from Nonparty 1, but the above forest shares were owned by Defendant 1, and it was proved that Defendant 1 purchased the forest shares in this case from Nonparty 1 as if he purchased the forest shares in this case, and made the registration of transfer of ownership under the above special measures for the restoration of real ownership, and it is argued that it was not consistent with the substantive contents on the guarantee relation of Nonparty 1 as well as with the assurance of transfer of rights in this case's forest shares in this case's name.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, the judgment of the court below can be seen as the recognition and judgment of the above purport, so there is no error in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)