(a) Estimated history of ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer or the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer, and meaning of false guarantee and written confirmation;

(b) Where the registration of ownership transfer with respect to farmland has been completed, the burden of proof for the agency to which the farmland belongs;

A. The presumption of ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership or the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and unless there is any assertion as to the circumstance that the illegally prescribed guarantee and confirmation document are false or forged, such presumption shall be maintained as it is, and the false letter of guarantee or confirmation document referred to in this context means that the substantive contents causing the

B. In the event that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to farmland, it is presumed that there was a proof of the addressing office with respect to the farmland sale, and the fact that there was no proof as to the matters to be proved ex officio is that there was no proof.

(a) Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership; Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership; Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership; Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership; Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership; Article 186(b) of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1036 Decided April 27, 1982

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1083 Decided December 13, 1983

Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu2928 Decided October 13, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other

Incheon District Court Decision 86Na209 delivered on April 30, 1987

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first instance trial:

The presumption of ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership or under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and its presumption shall be maintained as it is, unless there is any assertion as to the circumstance that the letter of guarantee and confirmation under the above Act are false or forged. The false letter of guarantee or confirmation referred to in this context means that the substantive contents that cause the alteration of right are not true. As such, the court below held that the presumption of ownership transfer registration of the real estate in this case as judged by the court below was not broken because there is no such false letter of guarantee or confirmation, or there is no evidence to prove that the registration was made by such false letter of guarantee or confirmation, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged above.

The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Until the judgment of the court below, the defendant's legal representative asserted that the land listed in the attached Form (3) (6) of the judgment of the court below was above the land, and there was no proof from the location of the land where the land was located under Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, and there was no error in the judgment of the court below or in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the action that decided that the land was not subject to the sale by Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act or the prohibition of disposal, and the fact that there was a proof of the location of the land transaction, and that there was no proof of the fact that there was no proof of the fact that there was no proof of the fact that there was the location of the government office about the farmland transaction, and the fact that there was no proof of the fact that there was no proof of the fact that there was no proof of the fact that the plaintiff did not have the burden of proof to the person disputing it, even after examining the record, there was no trace that the plaintiff alleged that there was no proof about the ownership transfer registration of the farmland of this case.

The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

The judgment below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate in this case is owned by the plaintiff et al. and that the defendant 1 occupies it by the entrustment of the plaintiff et al., and based on the evidence in its ruling, it confirmed that the deceased non-party 1, the father of the defendant 1, purchased and occupied it from the deceased non-party 2, the father of the plaintiff et al., and the above non-party 1 died, and the same defendant occupies the subsequent possession. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact cannot change the fact-finding of the court below on the ground that there is an unreasonable point among the evidences in its ruling that the plaintiff's assertion is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

The assertion is groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)