The invalidation of registration of transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership and the false details of the written guarantee;

The defendant confirmed that he was the de facto owner of the forest land in this case from February 3, 1957, accompanied by a letter of guarantee under the name of the non-party to the purport that he is the de facto owner who was managing the forest land in this case, and registered the ownership transfer pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Land Ownership for the reason of sale on February 3, 1957. However, upon the preparation of a letter of guarantee, the above guarantor did not know about the authenticity of the contents, but affixed the seal at his request, and the defendant started managing the forest land in this case from January 1, 1964, and did not purchase the forest land from the original owner, but even though he did not purchase the forest land from the original owner around January 24, 1965, if it is not reliable in light of other evidence, the content of the letter of guarantee is false and the registration of ownership transfer is invalid because it is inconsistent with the substantive relation.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 5 and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership;

Plaintiff 1 and 4 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Lee Jae-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 83Na1200 delivered on February 21, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the part of the result of the record verification (the part of the plaintiff's statement) of the court of first instance and the testimony of the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7, which are consistent with the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, who were used in completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on December 6, 1971 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership, were originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, and that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on December 6, 1971, and that the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 were false (the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 7's testimony on the records of the first instance trial and the result of the record verification (the non-party 9's statement).

2. Examining the records, in applying for registration under the name of the defendant with respect to this case, the defendant is obligated to verify that the defendant is the actual owner of this case from February 3, 1957. The defendant was attached to the guarantee certificate under the name of the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, and the reason for the registration under the name of the defendant is also a "sale" under the name of the non-party 1 (the deceased on March 29, 1975), and the defendant's remaining until the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased on January 1, 1960), and it is obvious that the defendant's statement was not related to the above non-party 1's purchase of the forest and field from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 5's non-party 6's name on the ground that the defendant's statement was not related to the above non-party 1's purchase of the forest and field, and the defendant's statement was not related to the above non-party 1's statement.

The above decision of the court below is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence or in incomplete deliberation because it is consistent with the facts alleged by the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that it is not directly related and credibility, and it is not possible to believe some of the results of the first deliberation records verification and the testimony of the witness on the ground that it is not reliable.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)