[1] The estimated history of registration of preservation of ownership, which has been made under the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, etc. of Land Owner and Undeveloped within the old several regions

[2] Whether the content of a letter of guarantee, which served as the basis for registration of ownership preservation in the name of B, may be deemed to have been false or forged merely because Party A applied for compensation under the Farmland Reform Act as a landowner’s qualification and the certificate of land price was issued to Party B (negative)

[1] Registration of preservation of ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land owned by Owners and Unclaimed Land in the Gu area (Law No. 3627 of Dec. 31, 1982, invalidation) is completed in accordance with the lawful procedures stipulated in the same Act, and is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Unless it is proven that a letter of guarantee, which forms the basis of the registration, was forged or falsely prepared, or that it was not a lawful registration for other reasons, the presumption of registration shall not be reversed

[2] The mere fact that Gap filed an application for compensation in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act as a land owner qualification, and around that time the land price securities were issued to him shall not be deemed to have been false or forged with the content of the guarantee certificate, which served as the basis for registration of ownership preservation in the name of Eul, which was made pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Undeveloped Land (Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982).

[1] Articles 1 and 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Land that is not the owner of a river in a river area / [2] Articles 1 and 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, etc. of Land that is not the owner of a river in a river area

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da4874 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2678), Supreme Court Decision 94Da52096 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 356), Supreme Court Decision 95Da1184 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 156)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys White-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na3098 delivered on June 17, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The court below determined that the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for Restoration of Unclaimed Land and Preservation Registration, etc. in the old several regions (Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982) is not reversed unless it is proved that the certificate of guarantee, which served as the basis of the registration, was forged or falsely prepared, or that the registration was not duly registered for other reasons. The court below reversed the reasoning of the judgment that the deceased non-party, who was the deceased of the plaintiffs, filed an application for compensation under the Farmland Reform Act as the owner of the land of this case on May 12, 1950. At that time, the court below issued the certificate of preservation of ownership under the above Act cannot be deemed to have been false or forged, and there is no other evidence to prove that each of the above guarantees, which served as the basis of registration of preservation of ownership by Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4, was not legitimate.

In light of the above, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)