[1] Whether the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration and Preservation Registration, etc. of Land Owner and Undeveloped within a Restoration Area is applicable to real estate which is not in conformity with the substantive rights relations, and is already registered (affirmative)

[2] Estimated history of registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Preservation, etc. of Land that is not owned by the owner in the river area

[1] The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the efficient management of land and the protection of real estate ownership within several areas and to the registration of transfer of ownership as well as the procedures for the registration of ownership, by promoting the owner registration of unclaimed land within several areas, and by allowing real estate to be registered pursuant to the Registration of Real Estate Act, which is not registered pursuant to the Registration of Real Estate Act, or whose registration is not in conformity with the substantive rights and obligations. Thus, the Act on Special Measures for Restoration of Unclaimed Land within several areas and the registration of ownership transfer is also governed by the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer as well as the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer, even if the real estate already registered is a real estate.

[2] Since the registration of ownership transfer completed pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Preservation, etc. of Undeveloped Land within several regions is presumed to be completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures under the same Act, and thus, it shall be presumed that the registration of ownership transfer completed pursuant to the same Act is consistent with the actual legal relationship. Therefore, a person who intends to file a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer completed pursuant to the same Act must prove and prove that the registration of ownership transfer was not duly completed pursuant to the same Act, which is a document attached to the registration of ownership transfer was false or forged, or for any other reason, that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in accordance with the same Act. The false written confirmation means that the substantial contents that form the cause of the alteration of right, are not true. Thus, even if the date of sale or sale, etc., of the written confirmation, are inconsistent with the actual process of the alteration of right, the presumption of ownership transfer registration

[1] Articles 1 and 16 of the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Land Owner or Undeveloped within a Restoration Area / [2] Articles 1 and 16 of the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Land Owned within a Restoration Area

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da28735 decided Oct. 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2711) (Gong1997Ha, 3452 decided Oct. 16, 1997) 95Da57029 decided Oct. 16, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3555)

[Judgment of the court below]

Military Amtan Village Association (Attorney Han Han-mo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na43573 delivered on May 12, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal and supplementary appellate brief are examined together.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land within a Multiple Areas (amended by Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982; hereinafter the Act amended by Act No. 4042, Dec. 31, 1988; hereinafter the same) aims to facilitate registration of the owner of unclaimed land in a Multiple Areas, and to contribute to the efficient management of land and the protection of real estate ownership within a Multiple Areas, by facilitating registration of the owner of unclaimed land in a several areas, and by allowing real estate, which is not registered under the Registration of Real Estate Act, or whose registration is not in conformity with the substantive rights and obligations, to be registered under a simplified procedure (Article 1). The procedures for the registration of the owner and the registration of the ownership transfer are also regulated (Article 16). Thus, even if the real estate already registered, it shall be subject to the said special measures for real estate inconsistent with the substantive rights and obligations.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the special measures as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The registration of transfer of ownership completed under the aforesaid Act is presumed to be in accordance with the substantive legal relationship because it has been completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed under the aforesaid Act. Thus, a person who intends to seek the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership completed under the aforesaid Act must assert and prove that the registration of transfer of ownership was not lawfully made under the Act on the Special Measures because the person who registered the transfer of ownership was false or forged, which is a document attached to the registration of transfer of ownership, or for any other reason, the registration of transfer of ownership was not made under the aforesaid Act. Here, the false written confirmation means that the actual contents of the written confirmation, which are the grounds for the alteration of rights, are not true. Thus, even if the date of sale or transaction, etc. in the written confirmation, are inconsistent with the actual process of the alteration of rights, the presumption of the registration of transfer of ownership under the aforesaid Act,

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim in this case on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the confirmation document for the preparation of the steel Gun, which was the basis of the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case, was false or forged, or that the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was not legally registered. In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, such recognition and determination by the court below are reasonable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the reasoning for violating the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing, and the presumption of registration, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, the determination of the evidence belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, or the

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)