If registration of forests and fields completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land / Where the registration of forests and fields was made within the registration period under Article 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2204, Jun. 18, 1970), whether such registration shall be deemed made within the registration period under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (affirmative)

A registration completed in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969 and repealed by Act No. 2204 of June 18, 1970; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) shall be presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, and the presumption of registration of ownership or registration of transfer shall not be broken unless it is proved that the letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed by the Special Measures Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that it is not a legitimate registration due to any other reason.

Article 11 of the Special Measures Act provides that “A person who has failed to register forests and fields to be registered under this Act shall be registered within one year from the enforcement date of this Act” with respect to the registration period. However, through partial amendment of Act No. 2204 on June 18, 1970, the registration period was extended by providing that “this Act shall be registered within two years and six months from the enforcement date of this Act.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the registration was made within the registration period under Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures, which was amended by Act No. 2204 of Jun. 18, 1970, within the registration period under the Act on Special Measures, if the registration was made within the registration period under Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures, which was amended by Act No. 2204 of Jun. 18, 1970. In the

Articles 5 and 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (repealed by Act No. 9143, Dec. 19, 2008); Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da71388, 71395 Decided November 22, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 129) Decided November 10, 1987

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Na111978 Decided October 19, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969 and repealed by Act No. 2204 of Jun. 18, 1970; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) is presumed to be registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, and the presumption of ownership preservation or registration of transfer is not broken unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Special Measures Act is false or forged, or that it is not a lawful registration due to any other reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Da63, Nov. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decisions 200Da7138, Nov. 22, 2001; 200Da7138, 71395, Nov. 22, 2001).

Article 11 of the Special Measures Act provides that “A person who has failed to register forests and fields to be registered under this Act shall be registered within one year from the enforcement date of this Act” with respect to the registration period. However, through partial amendment of Act No. 2204 on June 18, 1970, “this Act shall be registered within two years and six months from the enforcement date of this Act” and extended the registration period.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the registration was made within the registration period under Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures, which was amended by Act No. 2204 of Jun. 18, 1970, within the registration period under the Act on Special Measures, if the registration was made within the registration period under Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures, which was amended by Act No. 2204 of Jun. 18, 1970.

2. According to the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 1962 with respect to the 3rd 8rd 6th mal of forest land in Jin-si ( Address 1 omitted) prior to the subdivision.

B. On October 14, 1969, the said forest was divided into 29,257 square meters of forest land and 29,025 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted) and 29,025 square meters of forest land (20,000 square meters of forest land and 29,257 square meters of forest land as a unit of area conversion; hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On August 14, 1970, Nonparty 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on April 5, 1965 with respect to the instant land (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”). Nonparty 1’s statement in the column for section A of the closed register is written as “Law No. 2111”.

D. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 8, 200 on the land of this case on December 2, 2000 due to donation.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the registration of transfer of ownership of this case which was completed in the future of Nonparty 1 shall be deemed to have the presumption ability as a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, which was duly made on August 14, 1970, within the registration period stipulated in the Act on Special Measures for the Amendment.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the extension of registration period under the above amended Act, and the destruction of estimated registration power.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)