[1] The meaning of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate and the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land, which reverses the presumption of registration

[2] In a case where a person who completed a registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate or the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land makes an assertion different from that stated in a letter of guarantee or a certificate, whether the presumption of registration is broken

[3] In a case where the registration of transfer of ownership of a forest based on sale under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership and the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate is completed in sequential order, the case holding that the presumption of registration of transfer of ownership cannot be deemed to be reversed on the ground that the mere fact that a grave, such as a purchaser’s parent, is installed in a neighboring forest owned by another person, while a seller’s ancestor is installed in such forest, and the date of purchase in a letter of guarantee is made after the date of the seller’s death

[1] Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982), Articles 5 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 211 of May 21, 1969), Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982), Articles 5 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), Article 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 356 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land, Article 181 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da17162,17179 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2711), Supreme Court Decision 97Da28735 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3452), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33775 delivered on October 27, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2413)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2008Na61 decided January 22, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Ulsan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982, effective) and the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969, effective) is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of registration of ownership transfer or registration of transfer is not broken unless a letter of guarantee or confirmation under each of the above special measures is proved to be false or forged, or not legally registered due to other reasons. The false letter of guarantee or confirmation here refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantial contents of the reason for the change of rights are inconsistent with the truth. In light of the fact that each of the above special measures permits registration that is inconsistent with the process of change of rights against the actual transferee of real estate, the date of acquisition of rights is later than the date of death of the former registration, or the name or confirmation date of a seller, or it is not clear that only the specific reason for registration is stated in the present 97.57.

In addition, even if a person who completed a registration under each of the above special measures claims that he/she acquired a right in accordance with the other causes of acquisition even if he/she recognizes the fact different from the fact in a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation, the registration cannot be completed under the special measures for acquisition in his/her claim, such as the case where the date on which the causes of acquisition cannot be applied to the special measures for acquisition exists, unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is evident that the content of his/her assertion cannot be completed, or where it is obvious that the content of his/her assertion is an instrument, it cannot be said that the presumption of registration completed under the special measures for acquisition cannot be said to be broken merely due to the above reasons unless there are special circumstances such as where it is clear that the content of his/her assertion is an instrument, and the presumption of registration has broken to the extent that it is proven to be true (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da7138, Jul. 22, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 207Da14827, Oct. 25, 2007).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration under the name of 426-8,01, 426-27, and 181 square meters of the same forest land (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) on the ground that the Defendant’s ownership transfer registration under the name of 6 of this case was no more than 10,000,000 won for the above 6-1,000 forest land owned by 14,000,000,000 were no more than 16,000,0000,000,0000,000 were no more than 5,000,000,000,0000 won and less than 1,6,000,000,000,000 won and less than 9,000,000,000 won and less than 9,000,000 won.

3. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above recognition and determination by the court below are not acceptable for the following reasons.

The defendant did not know about the process of the registration of transfer of the forest of this case at the time (16 years old). However, the forest of this case was registered under the name of Dong and Dong in order to avoid the spread of registration by several village residents, and registered the transfer of ownership under the name of Dong and Seowon-gu in order to jointly purchase and manage the forest of this case, and registered the transfer of ownership in the name of Dong and Seowon-gu in the name of two co-owners. The defendant's father, his father, was one of the co-owners, while managing the forest of this case with his family members, he purchased grain or cash and purchased shares and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Seonam-gu in the name of Seonam-dong. After that, the number of Seodong-gu in the forest of this case became a foreign country for employment and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant. Although the defendant asserted that the acquisition of ownership was different from the acquisition of the guarantee certificate in the name of Dong and Seodong-gu in the name of the defendant, it cannot be viewed that each of the above reasons alone.

Therefore, in order to reverse the presumption of the above transfer of ownership, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's assertion that he acquired the forest of this case with the same background as the defendant alleged in the above assertion is not true. The evidence adopted by the court below alone alone is not a forest of this case but a grave of the defendant and his parents is established in the 426-10 forest of this case, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's well-being or the defendant did not manage the forest of this case. In this case, the plaintiff's funeral and ancestor ties were established in the forest of this case, and the purchase date of the letter of guarantee was the dual nature of the plaintiff's worship and the 23 years old age at the time of the purchase. However, it is difficult to view that the above presumption of transfer of ownership cannot be seen as realizing the fact that the ground for the acquisition of the forest of this case newly alleged by the defendant was proved to be true.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the presumption power of each registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Seodong and defendant was reversed for the reasons stated in its holding. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)