A. The meaning of a false letter of guarantee or confirmation which reverses the presumption power of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Land Ownership

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which concluded that the letter of guarantee was false without examining the person who prepared the letter of guarantee, the time of preparation, the details of preparation, and the contents thereof, etc., and without examining the substantive contents thereof, there was an error of incomplete deliberation due to the non-exercise of the right to ask for the name, or an error of law

A. The presumption of ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, effective) shall be presumed to be registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and its history shall be maintained, unless there is any assertion as to the circumstance that the letter of guarantee and confirmation under the above Act are false or forged. The false letter of guarantee or confirmation means that the substantive contents that form the cause of the alteration of rights are not true.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which concluded that the letter of guarantee was false without examining the person who prepared the letter of guarantee, the time of preparation, the details of preparation, and the contents thereof, etc., and without examining the substantive contents thereof, there was an error of incomplete deliberation due to the non-exercise of the right to ask for the name, or an error of law

(a)Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 5 and Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership (No. 2111), Article 10(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 126, 183, 187 and 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8616 decided Nov. 13, 1990 (Gong1991,67) (Gong1991, 97) 90Meu26034 decided Nov. 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 95) 91Da4898 decided Apr. 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1502)

Lee & Lee, et al.

Lee Jae-soo (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 90Na5436 delivered on January 11, 1991

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made on June 9, 1971 with respect to the 40.959 square meters of the forest land in Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, Busan, which is the real estate of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on the same day on the same day on April 17, 1985, that there was no dispute between the parties, and that the above forest was acquired on the ground of the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made on the part of the defendant, and that according to the evidences, the above forest was originally acquired on the ground that the non-party Iup, which is the assistance of the plaintiffs, was originally acquired on the ground of the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground that the above forest was made in his name under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land from the members of the farmland at the time of enforcing the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land on June 9, 1971.

2. The presumption of transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, effective) shall be presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and its history shall be maintained, unless there is any assertion as to the circumstance that the letter of guarantee and confirmation under the above Act is false or forged. The false letter of guarantee or confirmation here means that the substantive contents which form the cause of the alteration of rights are not true (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1312, Oct. 28, 1987). According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the above transfer registration was made under the above Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land from farmland members at the time of the enforcement of the above Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, effective) by obtaining the "False letter of guarantee" from the farmland members at the time of the adoption of the above Act, and it is hard to find that the above facts were 000 or more times of the above fact that it was false by obtaining the above evidence.

In order for the court below to recognize the above guarantee certificate as false, it can be found that the author of the letter of guarantee, the time of preparation, the preparation process, the contents thereof, etc. will be examined and confirmed whether it has been false or not by examining the substantive contents. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous due to the failure to exercise the right of explanation, or the misconception of facts or the omission of reasons due to the violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment, and thus, it cannot be exempted from reversal. The arguments pointing this out are with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)