The burden of proof for the presumption and exception of the contract report under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory.

If a party who reported a contract for land, etc. in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory concludes a contract without any change, the contract shall be presumed to have been concluded in accordance with the reported content, barring special circumstances, such as where there is a need to newly determine the price due to the fluctuation of land price, etc. between the transaction report date and the actual transaction date, and where there is a need to newly determine the price differently from the estimated price, and it is reasonable to bear the burden of proof against the claimant for such special circumstance.

Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7092 delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong1991,116) 90Nu19186 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991,1538) 91Nu10701 delivered on May 8, 1992 (Gong1992,190) 92Nu19934 delivered on July 27, 1993

[Judgment of the court below]

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu953 delivered on November 19, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If a party who reported a contract for land, etc. in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory enters into a contract without any change, the contract shall be presumed to have been concluded in accordance with the reported content, barring special circumstances, such as where there is a need to newly determine the price due to the fluctuation of land price, etc. between the date of transaction report and the date of actual transaction, and there is a need to newly enter the price differently from the estimated price, and it is reasonable to bear the burden of proof against the claimant regarding the above circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10701, May 8, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there were special circumstances, such as the theory of lawsuit which traded at a price lower than the estimated transaction price of the transaction contract report at the time of the transfer of the land in this case, and rejected the evidence corresponding thereto as untrustable for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, and presumed the estimated transaction price of the transaction report on the land in this case as the real transfer price. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the misapprehension of the legal principles, and the above determination by the court below is correct in accordance with the opinion of the party members, and there is no error

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)