Presumption and reversal of registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership and its burden of proof;

With respect to the forest land for which registration of preservation of ownership has been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, invalidation) even if there is any other person found to have been investigated, such registration shall be completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed by the said Act, and shall be presumed to have been registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. As such, a person who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, which has been made pursuant to the said Act, shall assert and prove that the relevant registration of preservation was not duly made in accordance with the said Act, a certificate of guarantee and confirmation attached to the change of title in the forest register, or for any other reason

Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership (Law No. 2111, Lapse) Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 188 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu2928 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1703) (Gong1703) Decided November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 67) 93Da34374 Decided October 12, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3078)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 93Na1484 delivered on September 2, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Even though it is found that there has been a separate person in charge of the forest land, the registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the above Act, and it is presumed that the registration is in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, a person who seeks the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, which has been made under the above Act, shall assert and prove that the registration of preservation has not been duly made in accordance with the above Act for any other reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8616, Nov. 13, 1990).

According to the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no evidence that the deceased non-party, the title holder of registration of preservation of ownership completed under the Act as to the forest of this case, was false or forged, which is a document attached to the change in the name of the forest register, and that the above preservation registration was not lawfully made pursuant to the above Act for any other reason, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all 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-sik (Presiding Justice)