[1] The meaning of a false letter of guarantee and a written confirmation that the presumption of registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate is broken and the method of determining its falsity

[2] The case holding that the presumption of registration made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer has broken down

[1] The registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197) is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption power of registration of ownership preservation is not broken unless a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act on 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 which does not fit the truth of the substantive contents of the reason for the change of right. Since the above Act permits registration inconsistent with the process of the change of right against the actual transferee of real estate, even if the entry of the name of the seller or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or confirmation is different from the actual transferee, it can not be said that the legal presumption power of registration is broken immediately, but if it has been proven that the substantive contents are not true by other materials.

[2] The case holding that the presumption of registration made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer has broken down

[1] Articles 6 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of Dec. 31, 197), Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 6 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of Dec. 31, 197), Article 186 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1470) Supreme Court Decision 91Da37157 delivered on January 17, 1992 (Gong192, 865)

Plaintiff, a party to the lawsuit of the deceased Nonparty 1 (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Cho Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na36097, 36103 delivered on March 20, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal together with the supplementary statement.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A registration made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, invalidation) is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the above Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that a registration has not been duly registered for any other reason, the presumption of registration of ownership preservation is not broken. Here, a false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation which does not fit the truth, and the above Act permits a registration inconsistent with the process of change of rights to the actual transferee of real estate. In light of the fact that the above Act on Special Measures permits a registration that is inconsistent with the process of change of rights to the actual transferee of the real estate, even if the name of the seller or the date of purchase is different from the actual transferee, such registration alone cannot be said to have broken the legitimate presumption of registration. However, if it is proven that the actual contents of the registration are not true by other data, the presumption of registration shall be reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da131297. 12, Apr. 236, 197.

In this case, upon examining the contents of the above letter of guarantee (No. 1-2) attached to the non-party 1's written confirmation that the non-party 3, non-party 4, and non-party 5 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 6 on March 20, 1935, jointly and severally. According to the records, the non-party 2 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 6 on March 20, 1935, the non-party 1 purchased the above certificate of personal seal impression under the non-party 1's name and the non-party 2's name that the non-party 3 purchased the above certificate of personal seal impression under the non-party 1's name and the non-party 1's name that the non-party 2 purchased the above letter of guarantee from the non-party 6, the non-party 1's heir, who was the non-party 6's above non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's title.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

The precedent of party members cited by the theory of lawsuit is different from the case and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above non-party 2 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 on February 1973, the above non-party 2 and the defendant's registration of the preservation of ownership and the transfer of ownership in the above non-party 2's name Eul evidence 3-1 (a renunciation of property) submitted as evidence, claiming that it is effective in accordance with the substantive relations, and that the non-party 1 was different from the non-party 5-3's seal imprint No. 3-2 (a certificate)'s seal imprint No. 3-2 (a certificate) on July 2, 1979, a seal imprint reported to the office of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the non-party 1, since the above non-party 2 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below's decision to reject the defendant's assertion that the registration of the preservation of ownership and the transfer of ownership in the name of the above non-party 2 were valid registration in accordance with the substantive relations, as it was completed on July 1, 1991, because the defendant had occupied the land of this case in good faith and without negligence with the intention of possession for more than 10 years from July 1, 1981, when the registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the above non-party 2 was completed, or since the period of prescription for acquisition of the registry was completed on July 1, 1991, or since the acquisition of the land of this case from February 1, 1973 to the intention of possession for 20 years after the purchase and delivery of the land of this case was completed on February 28, 193, the above non-party 2 and the defendant did not contain any errors

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)