The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

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

1. In case where there exists an agreement not to institute a lawsuit even if there exists a dispute on a specific right or legal relationship, there is no benefit in the protection of rights;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, in cases where registration of ownership preservation was made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), there is a separate assessment of the said real estate.

Even in cases where a registration is made in the name of another person prior to the registration titleholder’s land cadastre, such registration is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed in the Act on Special Measures and in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, a person who intends to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership made under the Act on Special Measures shall assert and prove that the title titleholder was not duly made for other reasons, regardless of whether the certificate of guarantee and confirmation document prescribed in the Act on Special Measures was falsely prepared or forged or forged.

In addition, registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is permissible not only in the case of direct transfer from a person who owns land cadastre but also in the case of transfer by a third party. Thus, even if the name of a seller or the date of purchase in the above letter of guarantee or written confirmation is different from the actual one, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of its registration is broken, and even if the nominal owner of the preservation registration does not clearly assert the circumstances leading to the acquisition by the transferor or the previous transferor in the course of the lawsuit where the illegality of the letter of guarantee, etc. is disputed, the mere fact is not sufficient, unless there are special circumstances.