[1] Presumption of registration of preservation of ownership under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land and the degree of proof to reverse it

[2] The case holding that in a case where the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed with a certificate stating the cause of acquisition by the heir Eul on the ground that the shares of Gap and Eul were nominal trust on the forest land registered under the former Forestry Association, Eul and Eul under the joint title trust, the above certificate, stating that the shares of Eul were inherited, is false

[1] The registration of preservation of ownership made pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969) is presumed to have been completed in accordance with lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, and is therefore presumed to have been registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, a person who intends to file a lawsuit for the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership completed pursuant to the same Act must assert and prove that the registration of preservation of ownership was not duly made in accordance with the same Act because the certificate of guarantee under Article 5 of the same Act, which is a document attached when the title holder of registration of preservation of ownership changes the name of the forest register, was falsified or forged, or for any other reason, if the other party has proved that the substantial contents of the certificate of guarantee or confirmation, which is the basis of registration, are false or that the substantial contents of the certificate, or that the substantive contents are not true, it shall be deemed that the presumption of the registration is reversed, and that the judge's conviction is not sufficient

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant, the inheritor of Gap and Eul with respect to the forest land registered under the joint names of Eul and Eul, obtained a certificate under the above Act on Special Measures for the Inheritance and has completed registration of preservation of ownership under his own name after changing the title in the forestry register, the defendant purchased the forest land in order to prepare a mountain for the mother time of the graves, such as Eul, etc. on the grounds that the reasons why the registration was completed, but the defendant merely purchased the forest land in question with Eul and registered the land jointly with others, and the descendants did not sell the forest land to others, and the Eul actually owned the land in its own name since Eul did not have the payment of the forest purchase price, and therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed under his own name, which is the heir's own name. Accordingly, the part of Eul's ownership should be deemed to be the purport that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed after a title trust with respect to it, and since the defendant's statement on the grounds of acquisition differs from the inheritance as stated in the application for the issuance of

[1] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), Article 186 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da14794 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2630), Supreme Court Decision 96Da31024 delivered on November 15, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 6), Supreme Court Decision 96Da4902 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1067), Supreme Court Decision 97Da4838 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1594), Supreme Court Decision 97Da11362 delivered on August 22, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2798) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da329639 delivered on September 16, 199 (Gong197Ha, 2798)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others (Law Firm Namnam General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Sung-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 96Na1088 delivered on May 16, 1997

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s property was solely transferred to Nonparty 1 on March 31, 193 on the land cadastre No. 2,09 (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) of the Jeonju-si ( Address 1 omitted), and that the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 on March 1, 193. However, on December 17, 1971, the Jeonju District Court’s receipt No. 37382, which was based on the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership, etc. of Real Estate, and the registration was completed on December 6, 1970 by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s heir’s lawful confirmation that it was not a co-owner, and that there was no evidence to prove that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s heir was dead on the ground that Nonparty 3 did not have the right and duty of registration as the witness of this case on December 14, 1995.

2. The registration of preservation of ownership of the forest land of this case shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969) which was enforced at the time, and the registration of preservation of ownership made pursuant to the aforesaid Act shall be presumed to have been completed in accordance with the legal procedures prescribed in the aforesaid Act, and thus, it shall be presumed that the registration of preservation of ownership completed pursuant to the said Act is in accord with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, a person who intends to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership made pursuant to the said Act shall assert and prove that the registration owner of the ownership was not duly made pursuant to the above Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land, which was attached to the change of the name in the forest register, because the certificate of guarantee and confirmation attached to the said Act was false or forged, or for any other reason. However, if it has been proven that the actual contents of the certificate or confirmation, which was not true, it shall be deemed to have been reversed the presumption of registration, and it shall not be decided to the extent of conviction by the judge.

In full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 12 (former copy of the land cadastre), which were employed by the court below, and each statement No. 1, No. 2, which had no dispute over the establishment of the non-party 1, Eul evidence No. 12 (former copy of the forest ownership certificate), the defendant 1, defendant 2, and the non-party 3 applied for the issuance of a confirmation document No. 5 No. 2 of the above Act on the ground of inheritance of the forest land of this case on December 26, 1970, and the defendant 1, the owner of the land register No. 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the plaintiff's owner of the land register were not aware of the change of ownership registration form.

In light of the above circumstances, since the guarantee certificate and confirmation certificate attached at the time of applying for change of name in the forestry register for the forest of this case were proved to be false, the registration of preservation of ownership in this case should be deemed to have been reversed, notwithstanding the above, the court below judged that the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership in this case cannot be deemed to have been reversed solely on the above grounds as seen earlier. Therefore, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and it is obvious that the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment. However, in filing the claim in this case, the plaintiff asserted that he owned the forest of this case without filing for registration of ownership in his name and sought cancellation of registration in the name of the defendants, and therefore, it should be further examined as to whether the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable. The grounds for appeal are with merit

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)