The burden of proving the absence of registered legal relationship

In the case of a real estate registration under the former Civil Act, the change in the registered right shall be presumed to have been effective, so a person who asserts the absence of the registered right relationship shall prove it, and if proved, the presumption shall be reversed.

Article 5(2) of the Act on the Organization of Special Court and the Special Prosecutor's Office; Article 1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate

Sturland

House for immigration;

Seoul High Court Decision 59No1574 delivered on March 31, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 201Da1574 delivered on March 31, 201

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as stated in the reasons of appeal as shown in the attached Form, and the answer by the plaintiff's attorney is as shown in the attached Form No. 1. Regarding the first issue, Article 5 (2) of the Special Court and the Special Prosecutor Organization Act concerning the first issue is entrusted to the prosecutor or the attorney-at-law from among the special prosecutor's office, and it is reasonable that the special prosecutor's office entrusts it to the prosecutor or the attorney-at-law, and in view of the legislative intent of the same Act, the state public official's law, which is related to the attorney-at-law, should not be applied to the prosecutor-at-law from among the present attorney-at-law under the same law. Therefore,

Concerning the second ground for appeal

In the case of registration of real estate under the former Civil Act, the change in the registered right is presumed to be effective, so the person who asserts the non-existence of the registered right relationship must prove it, and if so proved, the presumption shall be reversed. The original judgment, based on the evidence admitted by the original judgment, recognized that the defendant purchased the real estate from the subagent Kim-ju of the plaintiff's agent, who is an absentee under the law, or that the plaintiff's agent was not realizing in the Republic of Korea at the time of the contract for the sale of this real estate, is obvious in the original judgment, and therefore, the presumption of change in the right relationship by the registration of transfer of ownership of this real estate has been reversed. Thus, the original judgment does not violate the rules of proof of distribution of burden of proof, such as theory of lawsuit, since there is no proof that the defendant purchased the real estate from the plaintiff's legitimate agent. Accordingly, even in this case, there is no ground to see the original judgment by asserting the presumption of real estate registration.

As above, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Choi Mamo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)