Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm East, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 31, 2018

Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Da5594 Decided September 20, 2017

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to forest land of 29,257 square meters in Jin-si ( Address 1 omitted) in Jin-si, the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 1962 with respect to the 3rd 8rd 6th mal of forest land in Jin-si ( Address 1 omitted) prior to the subdivision.

B. On October 14, 1969, the 3rd 8th mal of the forest land in Jinjin-si prior to the subdivision was divided into five mix 29,257 square meters of the forest land in the 2nd 9th malle of the 29th malle of the 1969 ( Address 1 omitted) (hereinafter “instant land”) and 9,025 square meters of the forest land in the 2nd malle of the 1969.

C. Nonparty 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 14, 1970 with respect to the instant land by means of sale on April 5, 1965 (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”) under Act No. 2111 (the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land, which was enacted on May 21, 1969 and came into force on June 21, 1969; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

D. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 8, 200 on the land of this case on December 2, 2000 due to donation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In addition, the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1 was made based on a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation, and was made one year after the date of enforcement of the Act on Special Measures in violation of Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures, and constitutes the registration of invalidation as the presumption of registration is reversed. Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant for the reason that the land was donated by Nonparty 1 is null and void, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the land in the

B. Determination

1) First of all, we examine the argument that the registration of ownership transfer of this case is based on a false guarantee certificate and a written confirmation. The registration completed under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and unless there is any evidence that the certificate of guarantee or written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that the registration of ownership transfer is not legally registered due to other reasons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24900, Sept. 26, 1997; 2009Da15145, Jun. 11, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence that the registration of ownership transfer of this case was made under the Act on Special Measures for Public Health and Medical Services and is presumed to be based on the substantive legal relationship, and there is no other evidence that the registration of ownership transfer of this case was based on a false certificate of guarantee and a false confirmation, and there is no other assertion that the plaintiff's registration of ownership transfer was unlawful in violation of the Act.

2) Next, we examine whether the registration period under Article 11 of the Act on the Special Measures was exceeded. Article 11 of the Act on the Special Measures provides that “An acquirer who fails to register forest land to be registered under this Act shall be registered within one year from the date this Act enters into force.” The fact that the transfer registration of this case was completed on August 14, 1970 after the lapse of one year from June 21, 1969, the enforcement date of the Act on the Special Measures is recognized. However, since the Act on the Special Measures was enacted on May 21, 1969, and was partially amended by Act No. 2204 on June 18, 1970, the Plaintiff’s registration period under the Act on the Special Measures cannot be seen as being lawfully dismissed from June 18, 1970 to June 26, 1970, which was the enforcement date of the said Act on the Special Measures, and thus, it cannot be seen that the registration period under the Act on the Special Measures was extended to 2000.15.20

3) Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1 is legally made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures and cannot be deemed null and void. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant made due to the donation from Nonparty 1 is also valid. The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the implementation of the procedure for transfer of ownership due to the restoration of real name with respect to the land in this case is without merit without any further review (as long as the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected, the Defendant’s assertion on the completion of the prescription for possession or the completion of the prescription for the acquisition of the registry is

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim

Judges Song-sik (Presiding Judge)