[1] The meaning of a false letter of guarantee or a written confirmation to reverse the presumption of registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, and the method of determining its falsity

[2] Whether the presumption of registration is broken solely on the ground that the person who completed the registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate claims different from those stated in a letter of guarantee or a certificate regarding the cause of acquisition (negative)

[1] Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of December 31, 197), Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of December 31, 197), Articles 7 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of December 31,

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da37157 delivered on January 17, 1992 (Gong1992, 865), Supreme Court Decision 97Da17162, 17179 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2711), Supreme Court Decision 97Da28735 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3452), Supreme Court Decision 200Da3775 delivered on October 27, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2413) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da71388, 71395 delivered on November 22, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da282495 delivered on April 25, 2025 (Gong2094, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Da824945 delivered on November 25, 20094, Feb. 25, 2004

Kim Young-young (Law Firm Head, Attorneys Kimcheon-kwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004Na4238 Decided May 4, 2005

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

1. The court below determined as follows: (a) with respect to the land of this case 139,347m2 (hereinafter referred to as “land of this case”) based on the evidence of employment, the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant, on May 28, 1970 under the Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Forest Land, etc. (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969) was not aware of the fact that the registration of this case was completed on May 5, 1954 by the Gwangju District Court No. 2964, No. 2964, which was issued by the defendant on the Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Land of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the appointed party,”) and that the registration of this case was completed on the basis of the defendant’s confirmation of the acquisition of ownership under the name of the deceased Kim Jong-m2, the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”), which was the father of the Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership, etc. of this case.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The presumption of transfer registration completed under the Act on Special Measures shall not be broken unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that it is not legally registered due to any other reason. Here, false letter of guarantee or confirmation means a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantial contents of the reason for change of right are inconsistent with the truth. In light of the fact that the Act on Special Measures allows registration that is inconsistent with the process of change of right to the actual transferee of real estate, it cannot be said that the entry of the name of the seller or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or confirmation is different from the actual fact, or that only the current state of right is stated. It cannot be said that the legitimate presumption of registration is broken up merely because it is 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

According to the records, the defendant asserted that he, his father, was not purchasing the land of this case from Kim Jong-chul on January 2, 1973, but acquired through payment in kind in around 1935, but around 1975, that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the deceased Kim Jong-sik and that he agreed to be directly transferred the registration of this case between Kim Jong-sik and the above Kim Jong-sik and completed the registration of this case in accordance with the agreement, and that the registration of this case was completed. However, it is clear that the defendant's agreement on the special measures for the transfer of ownership around 1970 as the cause of the acquisition of the land of this case was subject to Articles 3 and 10 of the Act on the Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership of Rights, and as long as there is no evidence to doubt that the substantial contents of the guarantee document as the basis of the registration of this case and other materials that could prove that the defendant's assertion is not true, the presumption of the registration of this case can be reversed in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by understanding the reason for acquiring the land in this case by the defendant's father, which was paid in kind by the deceased Cho Jong-young, from the deceased Lee Jong-young, and it is clear that the above reason for acquiring the real estate already registered is limited to the case where the registered titleholder or his heir is actually transferred from the registered titleholder or his heir, and it cannot complete the registration under the Act on Special Measures because it is not subject to the issuance of a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures, and therefore it is not possible to complete the registration under the Act on Special Measures. Accordingly, by misunderstanding the defendant's assertion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures, thereby making it erroneous. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)