[1] Whether the subject of registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land is limited to the forest actually transferred due to a juristic act done before January 1, 1960 (negative)

[2] In a case where a person who completed a registration under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land claims that the cause of acquisition is different from that stated in a letter of guarantee or a certificate, whether the presumption of registration is broken

[1] Articles 3 and 7 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 1668 of December 31, 1964 among the Addenda of Act No. 471 of February 22, 1958) / [2] Articles 5 and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969), Article 186 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da47992 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3305) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da71388, 71395 delivered on November 22, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 129)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Barun Law, Attorneys Seo Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Na11234 Decided August 13, 2009

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case 1, 2 and the land before subdivision (hereinafter “each land of this case”) was originally owned by the non-party. The non-party died on July 29, 1962, and thereafter, the defendant completed each registration of ownership preservation under the name of the non-party as to each land of this case for which the non-party had not been registered at the time of December 20, 1971. The court below determined that the non-party was not entitled to an objection under Article 17 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, since it was established on May 21, 1969 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of the former Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969; hereinafter “Special Assistance Act”) and thus, it should be deemed that the defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on April 18, 1971.

However, the purport of Article 3 of the Special Act is that the act of acquiring the ownership transfer under the above Act is not limited to the act of acquiring the ownership transfer on or before January 1, 1960, but the acquisition and loss of real rights to real estate by the previous juristic act on or before January 1, 1960 can be registered under the above Act notwithstanding Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act that if the registration is not made within six years from the enforcement date of the above Act. Thus, the court below's determination that the above Act should be excluded from the application of Article 10 of the Addenda of the above Civil Act that prevents the transfer of ownership before and after January 1, 1960, and that the defendant's assertion that the above provision of Article 7 of the above Act should not be applied to the case where the above act of acquiring the ownership transfer was carried out on or before the enforcement date of the above Act. It is hard to see that the defendant's assertion that the above provision of Article 17 of the above Act had no special reason to be applied to the acquisition date of the above.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)