[1] In a case where the additional registration of preservation of ownership and registration of preservation of ownership is null and void, whether a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the additional registration is lawful (negative)

[2] In a case where there is a separate assessment of the land, the registration of preservation of ownership of which has been completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Restoration and Preservation of Unclaimed Land owned by the Owners in the Gu and the extent of proof to reverse the presumption and its reversal

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the presumption power of the relevant registration on the ground that the substantial contents of the guarantee document, which served as the basis of registration of preservation of ownership, in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Restoration and Preservation of Undeveloped Land, are proved to be true

[1] Where a registration of correction has been made as a joint ownership with the remaining right holder and the genuine right holder seeking cancellation of ownership preservation in order to cancel only a part of shares of land ownership preservation, the additional registration of correction of ownership preservation is dependent on the ownership preservation, which is the existing principal registration, and is not a new registration separate from the principal registration. Therefore, where the registration of preservation of ownership and the registration of correction completed thereby is null and void, only the cancellation of the above principal registration should be sought, and even if the registration of correction is not separately requested for cancellation, the additional registration based thereon should be cancelled ex officio if the principal registration is cancelled. Thus, the claim for cancellation of the above additional registration is an unlawful claim without interest of lawsuit.

[2] Even though it is proved that there is a separate person in charge of the land for which registration of preservation of ownership has been completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration of and Registration for Preservation of Unclaimed Land within several regions of the former, the registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, and is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, in a party seeking the reversal of such presumption, he/she shall assert and prove that the guarantee, which forms the basis for the relevant registration, was forged or falsified, was not duly registered for any other reason. The degree of proof of the falsity of the certificate of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration is sufficient to prove that the substantial content of the statement is not true, and that it is sufficient to prove that the judge’s conviction is not sufficient.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the presumption power of the relevant registration on the ground that the substantial contents of the guarantee document, which served as the basis of registration of preservation of ownership, in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Restoration and Preservation of Undeveloped Land, are proved to be true

[1] Articles 6(1), 63, and 74 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 4(2) and 15(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Restoration and Preservation of Undeveloped Land within a Diplomatic Area (Law No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982; Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 186 of the Civil Act; Articles 4(2) and 15(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Restoration and Preservation of Undeveloped Land within a Diplomatic Area (Act No. 3627, Dec. 31, 1982; Act No. 43627, Dec. 31, 199)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da7550 decided May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2262), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da19526 decided Oct. 10, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2302), Supreme Court Decision 95Da1184 decided Apr. 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 156), Supreme Court Decision 97Da1362 decided Aug. 22, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2798), Supreme Court Decision 209Da4679 decided Sep. 26, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 297)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and nine others (Attorneys Park Jong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 99Na5617 delivered on December 6, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the request for the discharge of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership against Defendant 1 is dismissed, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed. The remaining part of the case except the above dismissed part is remanded to

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the above land was destroyed at the time of June 25, 197, and cadastral records were restored in the state of non-party 1's restoration on August 1, 197, the court below held that the above land was subject to the registration of ownership preservation under the name of the above 4th 5th 6th 6th 6th 7th 7th 7th 197, and that the above land was subject to the registration of ownership preservation under the name of the above 4th 5th 5th 9th 9th 9th 6th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 196.

2. First, we examine the legitimacy of the claim for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership against Defendant 1, ex officio.

According to the records, although the meaning of the purport of the plaintiffs' claim is unclear, it is reasonable to see that the remaining defendants except defendant 1 seek cancellation of the relevant share among the registration of preservation of ownership of this case. However, defendant 1 seeking cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership of this case and seeking cancellation of the relevant share among the registration of correction of registration of preservation of ownership of this case, it is inevitable to seek cancellation of registration of correction in addition to cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership.

However, where a registration of correction has been made in common with the remaining equity right holder and the genuine right holder seeking cancellation in order to cancel only a part of shares in the registration of ownership preservation, the additional registration of registration of ownership preservation shall be attached to the registration of ownership preservation, which is an existing principal registration, and shall not be a new registration separate from the registration of principal registration. Therefore, where the registration of preservation of ownership in Defendant 1 and the registration of correction in the name of the Defendants that was completed therefrom is null and void as alleged by the plaintiffs, only the cancellation of the above principal registration shall be sought against the defendants, and even if the additional registration is not separately requested for cancellation, if the principal registration is cancelled ex officio, the request for cancellation of the above additional registration shall be deemed to be an unlawful claim without interest in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da7550, May 26, 1995; 200Da19526, Oct. 10, 200).

Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below which judged that Defendant 1 had the interest in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the pertinent share among the registration of correction of registration of preservation of ownership, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from reversal.

3. Even if it is found that there is a separate person who was assessed on the land for which registration of initial ownership has been completed under the Act on Special Measures, the registration is presumed to have been completed according to the lawful procedure under the same Act and thus, it is consistent with the substantive legal relationship. As such, a party seeking the reversal of such presumption must assert and prove that the letter of guarantee, which served as the basis of the relevant registration, was forged or falsified, was not duly registered for other reasons, and that the degree of proof of the falsity of the certificate of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration, is sufficient to prove that the substantial contents of the registration are not true and that the degree of conviction of the judge is not sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da1184, Apr. 23, 1996; 97Da11362, Aug. 22, 1997).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, the guarantor at the time of registration of ownership preservation under the Act on Special Measures, was aware of the land in this case as owned by the deceased non-party 7's family, and purchased it from the deceased non-party 6's descendants. However, the non-party 2, the other guarantor, testified to the effect that he was aware of his pro rata relationship with the non-party 6, and signed and sealed the contents of the guarantee. However, the non-party 1 testified to the non-party 7 that he was well aware of the fact-finding of the land in this case, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 7, and the non-party 1, the non-party 6, the plaintiff's testimony to the non-party 9's non-party 1, the non-party 1, the plaintiff's non-party 1, the plaintiff's non-party 1, the deceased non-party 7's testimony and evidence cultivation.

First, according to the fact-finding of the court below, if a majority of the guarantors did not know about the ownership of the land of this case and did not confirm it separately, the above guarantee was prepared without any specific basis upon the request of the above defendant because the relationship with the non-party 6, which is the part of the network of defendant 1, was related to the relationship with the non-party 6, which is the part of the network of the above defendant 1. Thus, this alone alone seems to be sufficiently doubtful that the contents of the statement on the substantive relation of rights are not true.

In addition, as seen above, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case was made based on the letter of guarantee that Defendant 1 owned the land of this case solely, and there is room to suspect that the substantial contents of the letter of guarantee of this case are not true even in light of the fact that the remaining Defendants raised an objection thereto and completed registration of correction as joint ownership by the Defendants.

In light of the above legal principles and factual relations, the instant guarantee, which was the basis of Defendant 1’s registration of initial ownership, shall be deemed to have been proved to the extent that it is suspected that the substantive contents are not true. Therefore, the presumption of the above registration of initial ownership had already been broken, and the presumption of such presumption cannot be deemed to have been actively recognized even if the circumstances of the original judgment were fully combined.

Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendants sought cancellation of the above preservation registration on the grounds that the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership in defendant 1 is recognized, and there is a violation of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, etc., or an error of law of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership completed under the above special measures.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and among them, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of registration of correction of registration of registration of preservation of ownership against Defendant 1 is decided to be a member under Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the court of first instance accepted this part of the claim on the premise that this part of the lawsuit is lawful, it is clear that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court below is remanded to the court

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)