The meaning of false guarantee which is reversed by the presumption power of registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and its degree of proof;

Since registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate has been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures under the same Act, it shall be presumed that the registration has been completed in accordance with the substantive relations. Therefore, whether the certificate of guarantee and written confirmation under the same Act is false or not, or for other reasons, that the registration has not been duly made in accordance with the same Act. The false certificate of guarantee and written confirmation refer to a certificate of guarantee and written confirmation that the substantive contents, which form the cause of the alteration of rights, do not fit the truth, are not consistent with the truth, and if there has been proof as to the fact that the substantive contents are not true by the materials as shown in the pleading, it shall be deemed that the presumption power of the registration is reversed. Therefore, the degree of presumption of falsity

Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 6 and Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Law No. 3562, Lapse)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu2928 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1703) (Gong1703) Decided November 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 82) 91Da2236 Decided April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1470)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 90Na264 delivered on February 7, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's mother, who managed the plaintiff's property, obtained the ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to deliver the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant to the non-party 2 by specifying three adjacent lots, such as 2,634 2,00,00, in the land sale certificate "on the 1943,00,000,000." The defendant inherited the above non-party 2's property to the above non-party 1 on December 1970 and requested the above non-party 1 to deliver documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and the above non-party 1 had the plaintiff's wife obtain a certificate of the plaintiff's personal seal impression, affixed the plaintiff's seal to the plaintiff's 3,000,000,000 won to the defendant, and the defendant had the above 36,000,000 won of the above real property acquired the above real estate ownership transfer registration under the name of the above 36.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, nor in the incomplete hearing or the lack of reasoning.

2. Registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act and shall be presumed to have been consistent with the substantive relationship. Thus, if a person who files a lawsuit to cancel the registration has proved that the registration was not lawfully made due to any falsity or other reason (Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu2928 delivered on October 13, 1987) and that the registration was not made due to any falsity or other reason, the false letter of guarantee or confirmation column refers to a letter of guarantee and confirmation which are the cause of the alteration of a right that are inconsistent with the truth (Supreme Court Decision 87Meu63 delivered on November 10, 1987) and it shall be deemed that the presumption of registration is reversed if it has been proved that the substantive contents are not true by the materials indicated in the pleading, and that there has been no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of presumption of a registration by a judge under the aforesaid Act.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)