[1] The presumption of real estate registration

[2] The case holding that even if the former registered titleholder is a minor and the donation of the real estate to the person with parental authority is an act of conflict of interest, so long as the transfer registration has been made to the person with parental authority, it shall be presumed that the procedure required for the transfer registration has

[3] Recognition of a seal imprint and presumption of the authenticity of a private document

[1] If a registration has been made on a certain real estate, it shall be presumed that it has been made lawfully in its cause and procedure unless there are any special circumstances.

[2] The case holding that if the former registered titleholder is a minor and the donation of the pertinent real estate to a person with parental authority is an act of conflict of interest, unless special circumstances exist, it shall be presumed that the procedure required for the transfer registration has been duly completed, unless the transfer registration has been made to the person with parental authority

[3] In a case where a document is recognized that the seal affixed to the document is a seal affixed to it by the name holder, barring special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the act of affixing the seal was conducted based on the will of the name holder. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed, it shall be presumed that the document is authentic in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the person who asserts that the document is forged shall prove that the document is affixed against the will of the name holder.

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 186 and 921 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 69Da311 delivered on May 13, 1969 (No. 1994Sang, 100Sang, 251, 252 delivered on October 21, 195, Supreme Court Decision 93Da37298, 37304 delivered on February 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1089), Supreme Court Decision 94Da23524 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1960) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 81Da684 delivered on August 24, 198 (Gong1982, 870) and Supreme Court Decision 81Da37859 delivered on February 15, 1986 (Gong1985, 870).

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2

Defendant (Attorney Gyeong-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na17437 delivered on October 9, 2001

The judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff 2's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff 2.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. On November 7, 1983, the court below found that the transfer registration (hereinafter referred to as "transfer registration") was made in the name of the above plaintiff's mother on the ground of donation on November 7, 1983 with respect to the shares of the plaintiff 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the shares in this case") among the real estate in this case. The above plaintiff was a minor who was born on July 5, 1964 and left about April 19 at that time. The court below rejected the above plaintiff's primary assertion that the defendant forged documents necessary for the transfer registration with the above plaintiff's seal imprint, etc. and made the transfer registration in this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above plaintiff's primary assertion that the defendant's act of donating the shares in this case to the defendant constitutes this conflict of interest between the defendant and the minor, who is the person with parental authority, and thus, in order to obtain the shares in this case from the above plaintiff, the defendant should request the court for the appointment of the above special representative for the above plaintiff's transfer registration without the above special title.

B. Where a registration has been made on any real estate, it shall be presumed that it has been made lawfully in its cause and procedure unless there are any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da23524, Apr. 28, 1995). Thus, even if the act of the Plaintiff 1, who is the former registered titleholder, donated the instant shares to the Defendant, who is a minor and is a person with parental authority, was a donation of the instant shares to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the transfer registration was made lawfully, barring any special circumstance.

In addition, in a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document is the seal affixed to the original owner's seal, barring any special circumstance, the act of affixing the seal shall be presumed to have been conducted based on the will of the person who prepared the document, and once the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed, the document shall be presumed to have been authentic in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the person who asserts that the document is forged needs to prove that the above seal has been affixed against the original owner's will (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da684, Aug. 24, 1982). In the above donation contract, the above donation contract contains the statement that the plaintiff 1 as the principal gives the share of this case to the defendant, along with the statement that the seal affixed to the above plaintiff 1 is affixed to the original owner's seal affixed to the above plaintiff, and the above plaintiff is presumed to have been duly formed.

Therefore, in this case, barring any special circumstance, such as that the above transfer registration was completed by the forged registration application document or that the above plaintiff was a person with no mental capacity to conclude a direct donation contract with the defendant, it is reasonable to presume that the above plaintiff entered into a direct donation contract with the defendant, and that all necessary effective requirements were met. As determined by the court below, the above plaintiff was the person aged 19 years and passed April at the time of the above donation contract, and there was no evidence to deem that the defendant entered into the above donation contract by holding the above plaintiff as a person with parental authority and acting as a donee with the above plaintiff, so long as there was no evidence to deem that the above plaintiff entered into the donation contract with the above plaintiff as a donee with the above plaintiff's act as a person with parental authority, it is nothing more invalid but more obvious that the exclusion period to exercise the right to cancel has already expired.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that the defendant formed the gift contract of this case with respect to the shares of this case without appointing a special representative for the above plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff 1 was a minor and the donation of the shares of this case to the defendant to the defendant is an act of conflict of interest and is not indicated in the registration right witness agreement. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of registration and the authenticity of documents. Thus, the defendant's appeal is with merit without having to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment on Plaintiff 2’s grounds of appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant forged documents necessary for the registration of transfer with the plaintiff 2's seal imprint, etc. and completed the registration of transfer in the name of the defendant with respect to the above plaintiff's share among the real estate in this case as stated in the judgment of the court below. In light of the relevant evidence and the records, it is proper to take such measures by the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below, and the appeal by the plaintiff 2 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal shall be borne by the losing party and so ordered

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)