Whether the presumption of registration is broken solely on the ground that the person who completed registration pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, etc. has a different assertion from that stated in a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation as to the cause of acquisition

In cases where a person who has completed registration pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197) claims that he/she acquired a right according to the grounds for acquisition different from those stated in a letter of guarantee or written confirmation, barring special circumstances such as where it is evident that the registration pursuant to the said Act cannot be completed in his/her assertion itself or where it is evident that the content of his/her assertion is a dead-end, or where it is obvious that the content of his/her assertion

Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of December 31, 197), Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da33775 Decided October 27, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2413) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da71388, 71395 Decided November 22, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 129)

Plaintiff (Attorney Long-term et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2001Na8040 Delivered on October 19, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Even in cases where a person who completed registration pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of Dec. 31, 197, the invalidation thereof) claims that he/she acquired a right according to the grounds for acquisition different from those stated in a letter of guarantee or written confirmation, barring special circumstances, such as where it is evident that the registration pursuant to the said Act cannot be completed in his/her assertion itself or where it is evident that the content of his/her assertion is so permissible, or where it is obvious that the content of his/her assertion is so permissible (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da71388, 71395, Nov. 22, 2001).

The court below acknowledged that the defendant was donated the land of this case from the non-party, his father, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on May 10, 1951 under the Act on Special Measures, after the non-party died on August 25, 1980, pursuant to the above Act, and held that the registration under the name of the defendant was valid since the defendant occupied the land of this case with his intention to own it for 10 years after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer without negligence and acquired the ownership.

The court below erred in failing to decide on the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant completed the registration by using false documents, but in this case where the plaintiff's assertion cannot be acknowledged, the registration under the defendant's name shall be presumed to be valid in accordance with the above legal principles. Thus, it is proper for the court below to determine that the registration under the defendant's name is valid in accordance with the substantive right relationship, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)