(a) The meaning of a false certificate and written confirmation which reverses the presumption power of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership and the method of judgment

B. The case reversing the judgment below's misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of registration under the Act on Special Measures and the falsity of a certificate and a confirmation under the same Act

A. A registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership Transfer is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. If it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act is false or forged, or that it is not legally registered due to other reasons, the presumption power is reversed. The false letter of guarantee or confirmation means that the substantive contents on the reason of the alteration of rights are not true. Since it is stated in a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the original owner is taken over after the death of the original owner, it can not be said that the letter of guarantee or confirmation is false merely because it is stated in the letter of guarantee or confirmation, but if it is proved that the substantive contents are not true by other data, the presumption power of registration should be deemed to be reversed.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was no reversal of the presumption of registration of transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, which is a legal act done before December 31, 1974, since the seller died, and the reason for the alteration of a right to the statement was not in conformity with the purchaser's assertion that the real estate was donated, and the date of donation claimed by the purchaser was around February 3, 1975 or about February 3, 1984, and it was not prepared or issued in violation of the provisions of Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, which stipulates only the real estate which was actually transferred due to a legal act done before December 31, 1974.

(b)Article 186 of the Civil Code and Articles 6 and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1470)/A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1785 delivered on May 24, 198 (Gong198, 985) (Gong198, 9616 delivered on November 13, 1990) (Gong1991, 67) 91Da10480 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 769)

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju Coastal Seas Association of Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na5555 delivered on August 28, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above assertion on the plaintiff's assertion that each of the real estate in this case was registered for preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased non-party 1, and that the plaintiff, non-party 2, his wife, the plaintiff, non-party 3, and non-party 4 et al. jointly inherited the real estate upon the death of the Dong on July 2, 1968. The defendant Jung Jung-up was registered for sale on June 13, 1984 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3094), and the above registration was registered for sale on October 7, 1971.

A registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption power shall be reversed if a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation is proved to be false or forged, or if it is proved to be not legally registered due to other reasons. The false letter of guarantee or written confirmation means that the substantial contents on the grounds of the alteration of rights are not true. The false letter of guarantee or written confirmation means that the substantive contents on the grounds of the alteration of rights are not true. Since it is stated in a letter of guarantee or written confirmation that the original owner's death was taken over after the original owner's death, it is the time of original adjudication that the letter of guarantee or written confirmation cannot be said to be false, but if it is proved to be that the substantive contents are not true by other materials, the presumption power of registration shall be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 191).

In this case, when the defendant Jung Jung-gu Association examines the contents of the guarantee certificate (Evidence A No. 9) attached to the written application for the issuance of a written confirmation, it is jointly and severally guaranteed that the defendant purchased the real estate from the deceased non-party 1 on October 7, 1971 and actually owns it. Thus, this is after the death of the above non-party 1, such as the decision of the court below. The defendant clan itself argues that the defendant clan itself was not purchased from the above non-party 1, but it was donated to the above discussion from the above non-party 2, his wife's wife after the death, and the reason for the alteration of right stated in the above guarantee certificate is not consistent with the defendant's assertion, and the date of donation of the claim is also around 1975 or February 3, 1984. Accordingly, since the above guarantee certificate and the confirmation certificate issued based on the above guarantee certificate were issued as a juristic act before December 31, 1974, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the special measures or presumption of registration.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)