The presumption of registration and burden of proof

If the title of the defendant is restored in the forest register by filing a report on ownership of the forest in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Cadastral Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the registration of ownership preservation and ownership transfer for the forest has been made based on this, the defendant is presumed to be the owner by the validity of the registration. Therefore, in order to deny the presumption of ownership of the above registration, the plaintiff who asserts

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 327 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 4 and Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036 Decided April 27, 1982

The Minister of Justice shall appoint a legal representative of the Republic of Korea

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3434 delivered on April 14, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below, which held that the non-party, Japan, obtained the permission for the transfer of state forests from the Joseon General at the time of January 31, 1927, which was owned by the non-party, who was the non-party in this case, before the land was divided into three parcels of land, was entitled to the permission for the transfer of state forests from the Hancheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, 2nd 5th 2nd 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.).

2. As seen in the above established facts, if the name of the defendant, etc. was restored to the forest register under the former Cadastral Act and the procedures prescribed by the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendants with respect to the forest land in this case, the defendants shall be presumed to be the owner in its registration (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036, Apr. 27, 1982). Therefore, in order to deny the presumption of the above registration, the defendants shall not be held liable to prove the invalidity of the registration in the plaintiff's assertion. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of registration and the burden of proof prior to the defendants' burden of proof on the premise that the defendants had the burden of proving that the above registration is consistent with the substantive relations, and the non-party, Japan, as shown in the opinion of the court below, obtained the transfer of state forest to a certain age limit and sold it to the same person at the time of release without any evidence.

Since the above illegality of the court below clearly affected the conclusion of the judgment, it is well-grounded in this issue. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges to reverse and remand the judgment of the court below.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)