A. Whether the title truster can exercise the right to cancel the ownership transfer registration due to the invalidity of the cause of the trustee without cancelling the title trust (affirmative)

B. Whether one of the co-owners can seek the cancellation of the registration in whole against a third party as an act of preserving the jointly-owned property (affirmative)

(c) Where the presumption power of registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer is reversed, and the degree of proof of falsity of written guarantee;

A. Since the title truster has a claim under the trust contract against the trustee, in order to preserve the claim without termination of the title trust, the title truster can exercise in subrogation the right to exercise the procedure to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership due to the invalidation of cause held by the trustee

(b) If a transfer registration of ownership invalidation has been made in the name of a third party with respect to the real estate, one of the co-owners of the real estate may seek the cancellation of the whole registration against the third party as an act of preservation with respect to the jointly-owned property.

C. Since ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate is presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive relationship under the same Act, it shall be presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive relationship. Therefore, even though the person who seeks to cancel the registration is liable to assert the presumption number, if the other party has proved that the substantial contents of the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, are false or that the substantial contents are not true, it shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of proof of the falsity of the guarantee certificate, etc.

A. Articles 186 and 404 of the Civil Act / [title trust] and 265 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da32494, 32500 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3293), Supreme Court Decision 92Da40204 Decided December 22, 1992 (Gong1993, 585) (Gong1988, 1980), Supreme Court Decision 92Da17938 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3265), Supreme Court Decision 92Da32067 (Gong3294, 19394, 194, 194, 1992).

The clans of the Maim Kim Jong-gun, Kim Jong-gun,

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 91Na3464 delivered on October 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the non-party 1 filed the lawsuit of this case as a legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan. In light of the records, this decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to party ability like the theory of lawsuit, or incomplete hearing. The argument is without merit.

(2) We examine the second ground for appeal.

In light of the records, the decision of the court below that recognized the fact that the plaintiff clan trusted the real estate of this case to the deceased non-party 2 and non-party 3 is also acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of the lawsuit.

The title truster may exercise in subrogation the right to claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration due to the invalidation of the cause held by the trustee in order to preserve the claim without cancelling the title trust, even if he has a claim under the trust contract against the trustee (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da32494, 32500, Oct. 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu10890, Mar. 14, 1989). In addition, in case where one of co-owners of real estate has completed the registration of invalidation in the name of a third party with respect to the relevant real estate, he may seek the cancellation of the entire registration against the third party as an act of preservation of the jointly owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu961, Feb. 23, 198). Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, all of which are without merit.

(3) We examine the third ground for appeal.

Since the ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (amended by Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982) is presumed to have been reversed by the legitimate procedure prescribed in the same Act, it shall be presumed that the person who files a lawsuit for the cancellation of the registration is liable to assert the presumed number of entries. However, if the other party's substantive entries in the guarantee certificate or confirmation certificate are false or it is proved to be not true, the presumption power shall be deemed to have been reversed, and the degree of proof of falsity such as the guarantee certificate shall not be sufficient to the judge's conviction (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31804 delivered on Jan. 19, 193; 92Da17938 delivered on Oct. 27, 192; 91Da236 delivered on Apr. 23, 1991). According to the above facts established in the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership, which is the above forest and forest owner's ownership.

Although the reasoning of the lower judgment was somewhat insufficient, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures, such as the theory of lawsuit. It does not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the aforesaid Act. It is without merit

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)