Whether the presumption of registration is broken solely on the ground that a person who completed registration pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate has asserted different from that stated in a letter of guarantee, etc. (negative)

Articles 6, 7, and 10 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982), Articles 6, 7, and 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da71388, 71395 Decided November 22, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 129)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kim Jung-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Na1064 decided June 3, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement submitted after the expiration of the period).

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982; hereinafter "Special Measures Act") shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of registration transfer registration shall not be broken unless a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Special Measures Act is false or forged, or there is no proof that it is not a legitimate registration made for any other reason. In addition, even if a person who completed registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired a right based on other grounds for acquisition, unless there is any special circumstance such as where it is obvious that he/she is unable to complete registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate, or it is obvious that the assertion is a mere mere mere mere fact, barring such special circumstance as the above, it shall not be presumed that the presumption of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership, etc., has broken out, and it shall be presumed to be true only when it is proven that a new ground for acquisition by other materials.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership in Nonparty 1 was completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures on January 18, 1985 with respect to the land of this case. The court below held that the fact that Nonparty 2 was the owner of the land before the division of this case cannot be deemed to have been false or forged merely because the non-party 2 was the owner of the land before the division of this case. In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of registration under the Act on Special Measures, as alleged.

In addition, the Defendants asserted that the previous land was divided into the land No. 1 and the land No. 268-3 and 268-4 on November 6, 1975, and that the registration of ownership preservation was completed only on the land No. 1 and the land No. 268-3 and 268-4 on November 6, 1975, and that the legal act, which became the cause of the registration, was after November 6, 1975, and the above special measures were subject to the legal act before December 31, 1974, so it cannot be deemed that the registration under the name of Nonparty No. 1 was made in accordance with the legitimate procedure under the special measures, and it cannot be deemed that the presumption was broken. However, it is difficult to view that Nonparty No. 1 acquired the land No. 1 on or after November 6, 1975, and otherwise, it cannot be deemed that the date of acquisition did not have any effect on the conclusion of the judgment below.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

The court below rejected the defendants' objection to the evidence that the claim for compensation of this case (No. 2) was forged on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and recognized facts based on its adopted evidence. In light of the facts established, the court below determined that the non-party 2 acquired ownership under the former Civil Act by purchasing the land before subdivision and made the registration of ownership transfer in the non-party 2 at the time of the application for compensation. The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the records, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, lack of reasoning, and violation of the rules of evidence, etc

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)