[1] The presumption of registration of ownership preservation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate and the method of assertion and certification for the destruction thereof / Whether the legal presumption of registration is broken out solely on the ground that the name of the seller or the date of purchase on the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which is the basis for the registration of ownership preservation, is different from the real estate (negative) and whether the title holder of registration of ownership cannot clearly assert the circumstances leading to the acquisition by the transferor or the previous transferor from the title holder on the land cadastre (negative in principle)

[2] In a case where Gap completed the preservation of ownership under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate with a guarantee that Eul (a person in fact owns forests and fields after purchasing them from disease) with respect to forest land divided from the assessed land, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in holding that the presumption power as to the preservation of ownership was reversed because the substantial entry in the guarantee form was false, although it cannot be deemed that the falsity of the certificate was proved in light of all circumstances or that the substantial entry was not true

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992) / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu2928 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1703), Supreme Court Decision 94Da40734 Decided December 23, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 642), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da78739 Decided January 27, 201

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 et al., the party taking over the lawsuit of the deceased Nonparty 1 and nine others (Attorney Go-deok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Na3628 Decided September 13, 2013

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

With reference to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with regard to the forest of this case divided by Nonparty 2 at 527, from the 527th, Sejong-si ( Address 1 omitted), which was the fact that Nonparty 2 was in the Japanese occupation, the court below determined that the registration of ownership preservation was completed under Nonparty 1’s name under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 4502, invalidation, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) on May 16, 1995, and that the registration of ownership preservation was not completed on April 10, 1997, on the ground that Nonparty 4 died and Nonparty 7 acquired the registration of ownership transfer from Nonparty 3 on April 15, 208, on the ground of Nonparty 4’s lack of legal title to the registration of ownership preservation of the forest of this case on the ground of Nonparty 4’s lack of legal title to the registration of ownership preservation of the forest of this case.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Where registration of preservation of ownership has been made under the Act on Special Measures, even if there is a separate person in the name of another person prior to the land cadastre, the registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedure prescribed in the Act on Special Measures and is presumed to correspond to the substantive legal relationship. As such, a person who intends to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership completed under the Act on Special Measures must assert and prove that registration of preservation has not been duly made for other reasons, regardless of whether the title holder falsely prepared or forged a letter of guarantee and a confirmation document prescribed in the Act on Special Measures or for other reasons. Furthermore, registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is allowed not only to have been directly taken over from the title holder of the land cadastre but also to have been taken over through a third party. Thus, even if the name of the seller or the date of purchase indicated in the above letter of guarantee or confirmation document is different from the actual one, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of registration has been broken, and even if the title holder of registration of preservation in the course of a lawsuit disputing the falsity of a letter of guarantee, etc., it cannot be deemed to have been clearly asserted 14.

However, according to the records, the Defendants: (a) donated or bequeathed the land under the circumstance of Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 5, the next South-North Korea; and (b) Nonparty 3 was donated or bequeathed the forest of this case from Nonparty 5; (c) so, Nonparty 3 asserted that the instant guarantee form was not false to the effect that Nonparty 1 purchased the forest of this case from Nonparty 3; and (d) on the land under the circumstance, the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 12, 1957 through Nonparty 3 on July 12, 1957 with regard to the forest of this case, divided into ( Address 2 omitted) 260 square meters from the forest of this case with the forest of this case. The ownership transfer registration was completed on March 22, 1986 to Nonparty 1 through Nonparty 6, the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 22, 1986. In all of the above circumstances, it cannot be seen that Nonparty 2’s land was inherited to Nonparty 7 or Nonparty 7.

In addition, on May 16, 195, the non-party 1 completed the registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Forest of this case on the basis of the instant guarantee guarantee separately from the above ( Address 2 omitted) forest. Among the guarantors who prepared the instant guarantee certificate, the non-party 9, 1, cultivated by Non-party 3 while growing the forest of this case at the time of guarantee, and testified that the non-party 1 had the right to dispose of the forest of this case, and that the non-party 10 (the non-party 3's ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves.

In light of the above, the defendants' assertion that they purchased the forest of this case from the non-party 3 who cultivated the forest of this case cannot complete the registration under the Act on Special Measures, or it cannot be viewed as a case where it is obvious that the contents of the assertion do not exist in its own. Even if the defendants did not clearly assert and prove all the process of alteration of rights to the forest of this case, it cannot be viewed as a case where the court below acknowledged that the special measures allow the actual transferee of real estate to make registration inconsistent with the process of alteration of rights, and that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the falsity of the letter of guarantee, just because the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the falsity of the certificate of this case, or that the substantial contents of the statement are not proven to be true. It is evident that the graves installed by the non-party 4 are not located on the land of the forest of this case. It is not clear that the substantial contents of the certificate of this case

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership in the forest of this case was reversed solely on the basis of its reasoning is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures, and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)