The estimated history of registration of preservation of ownership or registration of transfer of ownership completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership and its destruction;

Registration of ownership preservation or ownership transfer, which has been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 2111) or the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3094) shall be presumed to have been made through lawful procedures prescribed by the said Act, and shall not be presumed to have been a valid registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. However, if it is deemed that a false or forged letter of guarantee or

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 6 and 7 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, Articles 5 and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Forest Ownership

[Plaintiff-Appellee] The en banc Decision en banc Decision (Gong1987, 1703 delivered on October 23, 1987)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1989, 1071) (Law No. 1989, 1071) (Law No. 450, May 25, 1990)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and eight defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee and one other

Daejeon District Court Decision 89Na242 delivered on February 15, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The registration of preservation of ownership or transfer of ownership, which has been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 2111) or the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3094), is presumed to be a valid registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and is not presumed to be a valid registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, but if it is deemed to have been made by a false or forged letter of guarantee

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that since the forest of this case was owned by the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, died on June 4, 1947, and the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2, died on February 5, 1949, he succeeded to the plaintiff. The deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 2 of the defendants except the defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter the defendant non-party 1, etc.) purchased the forest of this case using the special measures for the transfer registration of forest ownership, he obtained a false certificate and obtained a confirmation that he purchased the forest of this case, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the forest of this case by using the above special measures for the transfer registration of forest ownership, etc., and since all of these registrations were completed under the name of the plaintiff under the above registration of preservation of ownership by using the real estate ownership under the special measures for the transfer registration of ownership, etc.

According to the records, although the deceased non-party 1 was registered as the first owner on the old forestry register in relation to the forest of this case, the above non-party 3 obtained a guarantee certificate and a confirmation letter that he purchased the forest of this case, and completed the above preservation of ownership as to the forest of this case on October 15, 1970. The defendant 1 et al. also asserted that the original owner of the real estate of this case was the owner of the plaintiff's assistance, but the deceased non-party 1 donated the non-party 4 of this case's land of this case to the non-party 4 of this case's birth, Seosan-gun 193 4 m, Seogri-ri 193 mal. 8 mal. 4 mal., the deceased non-party 4 and his children were succeeded to this, and the non-party 3 died again, and thus Defendant 1 et al. inherited the above real estate.

However, the non-party 5, one of the guarantors, who signed and sealed the letter of guarantee at the time of the preservation registration for the non-party 3, alleged that the above forest land was originally owned by the non-party 1, but the non-party 3 had the ownership of the above forest land. Thus, the non-party 6 thought that it was agreed in the letter of guarantee to be issued in the future of the non-party 3, and the non-party 6 stated that the forest land of this case was owned in the letter of guarantee at the time of the registration for the preservation for the non-party 3, and that the non-party 4 was the owner of the cream site at the time of the registration for the preservation for the non-party 3, and there is no clear evidence to regard it differently.

In addition, according to the records, it is difficult to view the fact that the deceased non-party 1 was established in the forest of this case, including the deceased non-party 1, and the deceased non-party 1 was a large house on the part of the plaintiff, and the non-party 4 was born under the village of tri village, and it is difficult to view that the deceased non-party 1 was a donation to the non-party 4, who was a dynamic who was a student who was born at a small house in accordance with the empirical rule, in view of the fact that the above past is still kept in the plaintiff's possession of the forest sale certificate, tri-party transfer certificate, and tri-party 1's 13-1 and 2, it is difficult to view that the above past period was divided from the forest of this case to the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 4, who was the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 196.

Therefore, the guarantee that Nonparty 3 purchased the forest of this case from the deceased Nonparty 1 shall be deemed to be a false content contrary to the truth, and therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case, which was made based on this, shall be deemed to have lost its constructive power.

Ultimately, the court below is justified to point out this issue on the ground that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in determining whether or not the letter of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership was a false letter or not.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)