[1] In a case where the date of purchase on a letter of guarantee or the date of death of a purchaser on the register is after the date of purchase on the certificate of guarantee or the date of sale on the register under the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of the general farmland or the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc.

[2] [1] In a case where part of the guarantor under the special measures of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) is not well aware of the facts, and only the confirmation content of other guarantor is trusted and prepared, whether the presumption power is broken (negative)

[1] The registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (amended by Act No. 1657 of Sep. 17, 1964) or the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3159 of Dec. 6, 1978) is granted not only to a case where a person directly takes over the registration from a titleholder on the public register but also a case where a successor or a third party takes over the registration. Thus, the legal presumption of the registration is not broken solely on the basis that the date of purchase on the letter of guarantee or the date of sale on the register is made after the date of death

[2] [1] Since part of the guarantor under the special measures for each subparagraph of paragraph (1) was not well aware of the facts as to whether it was passively traded, the letter of guarantee is prepared in a false manner, and it cannot be said that the presumption of registration is broken by the letter of guarantee.

[1] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (amended by Act No. 1657 of Sep. 17, 1964); Articles 6 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate / [2] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (amended by Act No. 3159 of Dec. 6, 197) (amended by Act No. 1657 of Sep. 17, 1964); Articles 6 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3159 of Dec. 6, 1978)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da6663, 6670 delivered on May 10, 1996 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1470) Supreme Court Decision 92Da32067 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 434) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da2618 delivered on November 12, 191 (Gong192, 100)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Gwangju, Attorneys Han-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 95Da44085 Delivered on June 25, 1996

Daegu District Court Decision 96Na8763 delivered on February 21, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records and evidence of this case, with respect to the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the real estate of this case, which was made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 1657) or the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3094) and the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Ownership, the court below's decision that did not recognize the reversal of the presumption power of each of the above registrations on the sole basis that it is difficult to see that the actual contents of each of the above registrations were proven sufficient to doubt that they are not true, is all acceptable. The court below's decision that did not err in the misapprehension of the presumption power of the registration, such as a theory of facts and decision of the court below, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles of each of

The registration under each of the above special measures is permissible not only in the case of direct transfer by the holder of the public register but also in the case of transfer by his heir or a third party. Thus, the mere fact that the date of purchase on the letter of guarantee or the date of sale on the register is after the date of death of the holder on the public register does not undermine the legal presumption of the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da6663, 6670, May 10, 1996). The judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles such as theory and theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)