(a) Where the presumption power of registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership is reversed, and the degree of proof of falsity, such as a written guarantee;

B. The case holding that the presumption power of registration made under the same Act has been reversed

A. Registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, and thus, it is presumed to have been in accordance with the substantive relationship. Therefore, even though the person who filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable to assert the presumption of reversal to the person who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration, 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 the substantive contents are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed.

B. If the guarantor in the above letter of guarantee stated to the effect that he did not know about the ownership of forest and field and affixed his seal on the letter of guarantee only at the end of the chairperson, the above guarantor's statement is already supported by the false letter of guarantee itself. Thus, it can be deemed that there was proof to suspect that the substantial contents on the reason of alteration of rights in the above letter of guarantee are not true.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Law No. 2111, Lapse)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da31804 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993,724) (Gong1993,724) 91Da10480 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992,769) 92Da17938 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992,3265) 92Da52870 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong193,1681), 91Da855 delivered on May 10, 191 (Gong191,614)

Plaintiff’s Attorney Lee Dong-he et al.

Defendant 1 and 12 Defendants (Attorney Ma-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na40599 delivered on November 25, 1992

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 21, 1970, the court below acknowledged the fact that the transfer of ownership was completed in the name of seven persons, including the deceased Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111). The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above transfer of ownership is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive relationship. The plaintiff's assertion that the forest of this case is originally owned by Nonparty 4, the decedent of the plaintiff, and the forest of this case was reversed because it was based on a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation under the aforesaid Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the guarantee or written confirmation under the above Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership was falsely prepared, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Furthermore, the forest of this case was originally owned by the South Hun-Mapyeong Schipyeong.

(2) Registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, and thus, it is presumed to be in accordance with the substantive relationship. Therefore, even though there is a burden of proving the presumption reversal to the person who makes a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration, 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 the substantive contents are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of proving the falsity of a guarantee certificate, etc. shall not be sufficient to the extent that the judge convictions (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31804, Jan. 19, 193; 91Da10480, Dec. 27, 1991

According to the records, registration of ownership transfer was made on February 1, 1934 under the name of the non-party 4 (Death in 1927) and on April 21, 1970 under the Act on Special Measures for the Ownership Transfer under the name of the non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, defendant 2, defendant 3, defendant 4, and defendant 5 (Evidence 2). The defendants did not purchase the forest land of this case from the above non-party 4, but did not purchase it from the above non-party 1, non-party 3, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, the original owner of the forest of this case, and the above non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 9, non-party 1, the guarantor of this case.

However, as a supplementary decision on the plaintiff's claim of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case by recognizing the fact that the forest of this case was registered in the name of 7 members in the name of 7 members, using the procedure under the above Act on Special Measures and recognizing the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of 7 members in the name of 7 members, and it seems that the court below judged that the registration of ownership transfer under the above Act on Special Measures is valid registration corresponding to the substantial relation, and that the recognition and decision are acceptable, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit. Accordingly, since the plaintiff's claim that the above registration of ownership transfer is void, it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim that the above registration of ownership transfer will be dismissed, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed, and there is no reason to reverse the above legal principles.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)