In case where there is a separate person who was assessed on the land and the said person denies the transfer, whether there is a presumption of registration of preservation of ownership, not under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership or the Act on

Where a person who is presumed the holder of a registration of initial ownership is presumed to be the owner, but there is another person who is assessed on the land, and if that person denies the fact of transfer, such presumption is broken, unless it has been made by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest and Forest Ownership or by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate, so the registration is null and void, unless the registered titleholder specifically conforms

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Da605 Decided February 22, 1983 (Gong1983,587) (Gong1989,1212) 88Meu54 Decided July 11, 1989 (Gong1989,12), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8616 Decided November 13, 1990 (Gong191,67)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na2945 delivered on October 16, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. Since the petition of appeal filed by Defendant 3 did not state any grounds for appeal and did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, the same Defendant’s final appeal by the same Defendant is not dismissed.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Where the holder of a title ownership registration is presumed to be the owner but there is a separate assessment of the land, and where that person denies the fact of transfer, such presumption is broken, unless the registration has been made by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest and Forest Ownership or by the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of the former Real Estate. Therefore, the registration is null and void, unless the holder of a title registration specifically conforms to the substantive relationship or does not assert or prove the fact of succession (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu8616, Nov. 13, 1990; 8Da5454, Jul. 11, 1989; 82Da605, Feb. 22, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the circumstance title holder of the forest of this case was the deceased non-party 1 and the plaintiff, his inheritor, denied the transfer to Defendant 3, who is the title holder of the above forest of this case, but since the above preservation registration was not completed under the Act on Special Cases as seen earlier, the presumption of the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's above defendant 3's ownership transfer had been broken, and that it conforms to the defendants' substantive legal relations. This decision is just as a result of the above party's opinion, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption power of ownership preservation, such as theory of lawsuit, or by violating the law of allocation of burden of proof. The argument

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

On April 29, 1987, the court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: the defendant 3 made a registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case on April 29, 197, and occupied it in peace and openly as to the intention of possession from that time, and acquired ownership upon the completion of the prescription for acquisition of the registry on April 29, 1987, the above registration of preservation is valid in accordance with the substantive relations. As to the defendants' assertion that some testimony of the non-party 2, non-party 6, non-party 3, each of the witness of the court of first instance, who corresponds to the possession of the defendant 3, is not trust in light of the testimony of the non-party 4, non-party 5, non-party 6, and non-party 7, the witness of the court below, and the result of on-site verification by the court below alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above defendant occupied the forest of this case, and it did not err in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or the rules

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)