Whether registration under title trust can be asserted concerning registration of preservation of ownership under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership in Forest (affirmative)

Even if registration of preservation of ownership in the name of a trustee in relation to forest land has been made pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership in Forest Land (Act No. 2111, effective) and such registration is presumed reasonable, the title truster may assert against the trustee that such registration is made through title trust

Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969)

Supreme Court Decision 97Da25279 delivered on September 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1843), Supreme Court Decision 95Da44283 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3250), Supreme Court Decision 96Da30656 delivered on December 9, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 210)

○○○○ ○○○○○m (Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 97Na1045 delivered on October 9, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of relevant evidence and records, the court below's finding of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the fact-finding in the judgment of the court of first instance, where the plaintiff purchased the forest land from the funds of a clan with the trust of the defendant 1 on September 29, 1970, under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership (Act No. 2111, invalidation) from the division of the forest land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case, and the plaintiff clan registered the registration of the transfer of ownership on September 29, 1970, and the third and fourth forest land of this case did not contain any errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

If the registration of preservation of ownership of Defendant 1 with respect to the above ( Address 1 omitted) forest land was made through the title trust of the Plaintiff clan, the Plaintiff clan may terminate it on the basis of the above title trust agreement and file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the above Defendant on the ground of termination of the title trust agreement. Thus, even if the lower court did not deliberate and make a final decision on whether the Plaintiff clan acquired the above forest land, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on the title trust without exercising the right to make a statement in the lower judgment.

In addition, even though the registration of preservation of ownership of Defendant 1 with respect to the forest land before the above division was made under the Act on the Special Measures, and the registration is presumed to be sufficient, the Plaintiff’s clan, the title truster, can assert that the above registration with respect to the above Defendant, the trustee, was made through title trust (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da44283, Oct. 10, 197). Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of registration or title trust under the Act on the Special Measures.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)