The case holding that a person is a person who has obtained a confirmation by false means under Article 13 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer.

If a person who is not a direct purchaser of a mountain dispute and is not a purchaser of the forest is issued a certificate of guarantee that he/she actually purchases and owns the forest from a titleholder on the forest directly in the forest cadastral book, it shall be a false certificate, and the so-called so-called "certificate of guarantee" issued by the letter of guarantee for the transfer of real estate ownership is a case where the certificate of certification is obtained by false means as provided in Article 13 (1) 1 of the

Article 13 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1750 Decided March 12, 1985 85Do1328 Decided September 10, 1985

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Daegu High Court Decision 84No1569 delivered on December 24, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 1 and 2’s grounds of appeal

In the process of completing the registration of preservation of ownership of two parcels of forest land at the original city, which was registered as the joint ownership of Nonparty 1 and Shin Jae-chul under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, the original judgment and the first instance court's fact-finding that the co-defendant 1 had obtained a confirmation document directly from the owners of the above two parcels of forest land (at least 35 percent in the original city, Yangsan-gun) and one piece of land (at least 39 percent in the original city, from the owners of the above land in the forest register) and exercised it by submitting the confirmation document to the effect that the co-defendant 1 purchased it in January 5, 1970, and it is legitimate to examine the facts of the first instance court's decision and the first instance court's finding that there was a violation of the rules of evidence as to the above process, and even if the above two parcels of forest land was purchased from Defendant 2 before 60 years in the forest register, the original judgment did not contain any error of law by the purchaser's of the legal reasoning as well.

In addition, the judgment below as to the Defendants alleged that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the gross negligence under Article 13(2) of the Act on Special Measures, but the partial application of the Act is against Defendant 3’s so-called, and it is not against the Defendants’ so-called, and it is merely an attack which is conducted by misunderstanding the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the court

2. As to Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal, according to the evidence of the judgment below, the facts alleged in the judgment of the court below can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error in the incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as to the process of fact-finding, such as the theory of litigation, and the judgment below that the letter of guarantee prepared by the defendant is false is without merit as stated in the judgment of Defendant 1 and 2’s grounds of appeal. Thus,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)