The case holding that the above registration under Gap's name has no presumption ability because it is not only different from the description of a letter of guarantee or a written confirmation, which is the cause of the alteration of rights claimed by Gap and the seller Gap's certificate of the transfer of ownership under Gap's name, but also does not constitute a case which can be registered under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Ownership, etc. if the sale was made on October 1963 as Gap's assertion.

A. In light of the purport of Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of General Farmland (Act No. 1657, invalidation) and Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, the registration of ownership transfer shall be construed only to have been made before the enforcement date of the Civil Act.

B. The case holding that Gap's registration under Gap's name is not sufficient to presume since it does not correspond to the date of the change of rights and the date of the above letter of guarantee or confirmation, and if the sale was made on October 10, 1963 as alleged by Gap, as it does not correspond to the date of the cause of the change of rights and the date of the above letter of guarantee or confirmation, and it does not correspond to the case where the sale was made on October 1963, as alleged by Gap, because the content of guarantee or confirmation, which is the cause of the registration of transfer of ownership under the above special measures, was purchased on October 7, 1955 by Gap, while Gap's assertion was made by the owner of the real estate in dispute, died in around 1951 and Eul was succeeded to the above real estate as his sole heir.

(a) Articles 1 and 3(b) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland (Law No. 1657, Lapse), Article 5 of the same Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da46779 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1711)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two other attorneys-at-law in charge

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na17773 delivered on January 28, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 among the real estate in this case was registered under the name of the deceased non-party 1, the original father of the plaintiff, and that the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 was owned by the deceased non-party 2, the plaintiff's father of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff succeeded to the registration after the death of all of the above deceased during the flight season width around 1951. The court below found that the above deceased non-party 3 was dead on June 21, 1965 and March 18, 1965 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of General Farmland (Act No. 1657, Oct. 7, 1955) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff's father-party 1, the plaintiff's father of the registration in this case. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above purchaser's registration date was forged or false, and false.

2. However, in light of the purport of Article 1 of the Farmland Special Adjustment Act and Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, the registration of transfer of ownership which can be made under the Farmland Special Adjustment Act is interpreted only to have been made before the enforcement date of the Civil Act. The consistent argument by Defendant 3 up to the original judgment is that the juristic act was made before the enforcement date of the Civil Act, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was the owner of the real estate of this case, died in around 1951 and succeeded to the above real estate by the plaintiff as a sole inheritor. Since he purchased the above real estate from the plaintiff around October 1963 before the completion of the inheritance registration, it is not consistent with the written guarantee or confirmation of transfer of right, which is the cause date of the alteration of right and the seller's certificate of transfer of ownership, which is the cause of the registration of this case, and if the sale was made on October 1963, it cannot be said that there is such presumption ability.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application of the Farmland Special Assistance Act and the presumption power of registration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal without examining the remaining grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)