(a) Presumption history of registration of ownership preservation made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and method of proving its reversal;

B. Whether there exists a customary custom that the farmland owned by a clan is inherited to its descendants (negative)

C. Whether a clan member loses his/her ownership because he/she did not obtain permission from the ancestor member (negative)

A. As to the land for which registration of ownership preservation has been made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, even if there is a separate person found to exist the land, the registration is presumed to have been made in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the above Act and is consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, in order to realize such presumption, it is necessary to prove that the letter of guarantee or confirmation, which is the basis for the registration and the change of land cadastre, was false or forged, and that the registration was not lawfully made in accordance with the above Act, or for any other reason, and the responsibility for the proof of such assertion is on the side of asserting

B. There is no custom that the farmland owned by a clan is inherited to the descendants of the clan.

C. It is not possible to automatically lose the ownership of the clans that have been transferred to the clan because it did not obtain a permit from the clans.

A. Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 7 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer; Article 1000 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2915 delivered on Nov. 28, 1989 (Gong1990, 125) (Gong1990, 125) Decision 90Da11271 delivered on Feb. 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 964), Supreme Court Decision 66Da468 delivered on Apr. 26, 196, Supreme Court Decision 67Da531 delivered on Jul. 25, 1967

Attorney Cho Tae-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Sim Ma-nam Sweak Swek and Swek

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na26459 delivered on December 14, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, the registration is presumed to have been made in accordance with the substantive legal relationship because the registration was made in accordance with the lawful procedure and is presumed to have been in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, in order to realize such presumption, the guarantee or confirmation document under the above Act, which is a document for the change of land cadastre, was false or forged, shall be proved to prove that the registration was not lawfully made due to any other reason. The responsibility for proving this assertion lies on the part of the plaintiff (the plaintiff in this case) who asserts that the registration is invalid.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant for the land of this case was made under the Act on the Special Measures, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the letter of guarantee or confirmation, which was the cause of the certificate, was false or forged, or that it was completed without due process. In addition, it held that the land of this case is the land owned by the defendant clan from its original point of view, and that the land of this case was the land owned by the defendant clan in the name of the deceased Jong-gu at the time of the land situation due to the reasons as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the registration of transfer

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of law such as exercise of the right to use a name, incomplete deliberation, lack of reason, violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of experience, or other misunderstanding of legal principles. There is no custom in our custom that the farmland of a clan is inherited to the descendants of the clan, and it is not allowed to automatically lose the above debate because it did not have the permission for the farmland of a clan which has already been transferred to the clan. The theory of a lawsuit mainly criticizes the supplementary judgment made by the court below and its factual findings, which does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)