A. Whether the presumption of ownership transfer registration affects the former owner (affirmative)

B. Whether the title holder of the real estate registration bears the burden of presumption by arguing that the form or process of the act of reason for registration is somewhat different (negative)

A. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer of real estate has been completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership based on legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, the latter part of the dispute must be asserted and proved in the grounds for invalidation.

B. Since the registration of real estate is valid even if the current state of true rights is disclosed without reflecting the process or appearance that led to the disclosure as it is, if the registration of ownership transfer is not effected against the will of the former owner, the nominal owner asserts that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the act of registration, and the presumption of its registration cannot be said to be broken.

(a)Article 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da741 delivered on June 26, 1979 (Gong1979, 12043), 81Da791 delivered on June 22, 1982 (Gong1982, 682), Supreme Court Decision 91Da26379, 26386 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1675)

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim Yong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na327 delivered on September 23, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land of this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, but the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 4, 1985 due to sale and purchase on the same day, and the above non-party 1 died on June 24, 198, which was the deceased non-party 2's wife, non-party 3, the plaintiff, non-party 4, non-party 5 and the above non-party 1's remaining children, the above non-party 6, non-party 7, 8, 9, and non-party 10 jointly inherited the above non-party 1's property. The defendant did not know that the above non-party 1's ownership transfer registration was revoked on the ground that the above non-party 1's certificate of personal seal impression and other documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground that the above non-party 1's ownership transfer registration was invalid, and it did not constitute the above non-party 1's title 7's allegation.

2. Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, the title holder is presumed to have acquired ownership from the former owner as well as from the latter owner by legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, the disputing party must assert and prove the grounds for such invalidation (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da741 delivered on June 26, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 81Da791 delivered on April 24, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da26379, 26386 delivered on April 24, 192). The real estate registration is valid if the present state of true right is announced, the process or form leading to the public, and the registration is not reflected in the original decision. According to the reasoning of the court below, the defendant's assertion that the above non-party 1 purchased the ownership transfer registration under the name of the latter non-party 1 by forging the documents, such as a certificate of the seal imprint, and the defendant's assertion that it was not a legitimate reason for the above non-party 1 to acquire the ownership transfer registration under the above name.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the presumption of real estate registration, and there is a ground for appeal assigning this error.

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)