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

The registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969, invalidation) is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, and thus, it is presumed that the registration is in conformity with the substantive relationship. Therefore, even though the party who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable to assert and prove the reversal of the presumption, if the other party has proved that the substantive contents of the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, which was 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

Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Law No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), Article 186 of the Civil Act

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

Attorney Park Il-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Defendant 1 and nine defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-ho-ho et al.

Jeju District Court Decision 92Na589 delivered on May 20, 1993

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above land was unregistered land owned by the State on July 15, 193 (2 years for the above land). Since the State was issued a false registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1 to the non-party 2's name on the ground that the ownership registration of the above land was cancelled by the non-party 1's new registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's new registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above non-party 1's new registration of the non-party 1's new registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 1's new registration of the non-party 5's new registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1's new registration of ownership transfer to the non-party 2's new registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above non-party 1's new registration of the non-party 1's new registration of ownership transfer to the non-party 4's new registration of ownership.

2. 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 it is presumed to be consistent with the substantive relationship. Therefore, even though the person who filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable to assert and prove the presumption reversal, when the other party has proved that the substantial contents of a guarantee certificate or a written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, are false or that substantial contents are not true, the presumption of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of proof of the falsity of a guarantee certificate, etc. shall not be sufficient to the extent that the judge convictions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da31804, Jan. 19, 1993; 93Da1381, Jul. 13, 1993).

However, according to the records, among those who directly participated in the preparation of the guarantee certificate which is the basis of registration of initial ownership relating to the land of this case, a surviving person is only the non-party 6, who was the principal of the Plaintiff’s association at the time of the Plaintiff’s association and the guarantor who was the principal of the right to guarantee the land of this case, and the non-party 7, who was one of the guarantor who was the principal of the right to guarantee the ownership of this case. While the witness knew at the first instance court that the land of this case was purchased and managed by the Plaintiff’s association at the time of the registration under the Act on Special Measures, there was a special trust with the head of the association at the time of the association, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to refuse his request for registration of initial ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Protection of Land of this case, because the ordinary fees were KRW 300,000, 1000, and the above documents were not issued under the name of the guarantor of the Plaintiff association and the non-party 6, who was not issued the above documents.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case was not reversed on the ground of its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation under the Act on Special Measures and the falsity of the letter of guarantee under the same Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)