A. The probative value of the registered right and the title trust relation

(b) Where the presumption power of ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for Transfer of Real Estate Ownership is reversed;

(c) The case holding that the presumption power of transfer of ownership in the title Gap's name was reversed on the ground that, in case where Gap did not purchase forest and field, and his mother did not donate to Eul after the title trust was terminated, and his mother claimed that Eul registered in his own name under the above special measures, the letter of guarantee or confirmation that Eul purchased forest and field from Eul is false, and thus, it is presumed that Gap's purchase of forest and field

A. In general, in a case where a real estate owner’s title is entrusted to another person, documents proving the legal relationship, such as the certificate of registration, are held by the title truster. Thus, if the title truster does not possess these documents of legal relationship and instead holds them by the title trustee, it should be deemed as impeding the recognition of the title trust relationship, barring any special circumstance.

B. If it has been proven to the extent that the substantial contents of a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate are not true, the presumption power of registration shall be reversed.

C. The case holding that in case where Party A did not purchase forest land, and his mother did not donate to Party B after the title trust was terminated, and thus, Party A claimed to have registered under his own name in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, the presumption power of ownership transfer registration in the name of Party A was reversed, since the letter of guarantee or confirmation that Party A purchased forest land from Party B was false.

A. Article 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust], Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act b. Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 6 and Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Law No. 3094, effective)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu14530 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1133), 90Da17491 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1372), 91Da12615, 12622 delivered on June 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 2034). Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1470). Supreme Court Decision 91Da37157 delivered on January 17, 1992 (Gong192, 865).

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Busan District Court Decision 91Na558 delivered on April 3, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1 (the supplemental appellate brief of the same representative was submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, so it is judged to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above non-party 1 engaged in a partnership business with the above defendant and the aggregate extraction business, but purchased 250,000 won below the market price of the forest of this case, and the above non-party 1 cancelled the above partnership business contract on November 28, 1974 and operated the business together with the above defendant and the non-party 2 from January 10, 1980 to March 30 of the same year after obtaining permission to extract aggregate in his name. Upon examining the evidence relations prepared by the court below according to the records, the court below's above fact-finding is acceptable.

Since it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to purchase the forest land of this case from the above defendant's side or to conduct a partnership business with the above defendant as an access road to the aggregate collection place, it would be against the empirical rule to conduct a partnership business at the same time. However, if the above non-party 1 and the above defendant's partnership business period between the above defendant 1 and the above defendant are not known until the whole extraction of aggregate from the aggregate collection place of this case (it is not possible to recognize the above records even if the records were examined), the above non-party 1, even after the above defendant's partnership business with the above defendant, needs to continue extraction of aggregate or sell aggregate collection place to another person, it is necessary to use the forest land of this case as an access road to the above extraction place of aggregate collection, so it cannot be deemed that the above non-party 1 purchased the forest land of this case at the same time with the above defendant, and it cannot be deemed that it violated the empirical rule like theory.

In addition, in light of the practice of transferring the object of the business to a partnership, or the ratio of profit distribution under the conditions of the business partnership between the above non-party 1 and the above defendant and the non-party 2, the above forest land should be regarded as a title trust. However, this cannot be accepted merely because it is an independent opinion.

The decision of the court below is without merit that there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence in finding the motive of the work, the relationship between the trade partner and the trade partner, and the conditions of the work in violation of the actual practice and the rule of experience.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the statement of evidence No. 12-16 (Re-examination of the answer), which the court below employed, it can be recognized that the above non-party No. 3 entrusted ownership of the forest of this case to the plaintiff. However, even after examining the sender's statement and reply as stated in the above letter pointing out by the record, it cannot be concluded that the above letter was based on the premise that the above non-party No. 3 entrusted ownership of the forest of this case to the plaintiff (the above letter was purchased from the above non-party No. 3, even if the non-party No. 1 purchased the ownership of the forest of this case from the above non-party No. 3, the plaintiff can show the above letter to the above defendant who is the representative of the non-party No. 3).

The court below's argument that the evidence No. 12-16 of the above evidence No. 12 was committed in violation of the rules of evidence and the incomplete hearing.

3. The grounds of appeal No. 3 as well as the grounds of appeal related to the Plaintiff’s right of representation are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the above defendant's argument that since the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's husband, purchased the forest of this case from the defendant 1, who is the plaintiff's agent, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the above plaintiff's name was completed under a title trust with the plaintiff 3, the above non-party 3 terminated the title trust and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in this case's forest of this case to the defendant who donated the forest of this case from the above non-party 3, the registration of transfer of ownership in the above defendant's name

In general, in a case where only the owner of real estate has been entrusted to another person, documents proving the right, such as the certificate of the right to registration, are held by the title truster. Thus, if the title truster does not possess these documents of legal relationship and instead he holds them, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed as impeding the recognition of the title trust relationship, barring any special circumstance. Thus, if the plaintiff holds the certificate of the registration of the forest of this case until now and no evidence exists to prove the title trust relationship between the above non-party 3 and the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff holds the certificate of the registration of the forest of this case and the above non-party 3 or the defendant has any evidence to prove the title trust relationship, it is difficult to recognize the title trust relationship between the above non-party 3 and the plaintiff. Therefore, the decision of the court below to this purport is justifiable, and there is no other appropriate part even if the court below did not examine

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

4. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4.

The part that Nonparty 1, as the Plaintiff’s husband, entered into a sales contract for the forest of this case with respect to Nonparty 1’s testimony, was false and the part that Nonparty 1 decided to divide the forest of this case into the above ( Address omitted) is pointed out. However, even if considering the above reasons, according to the records, examining the overall testimony of Nonparty 1 by the court below based on other evidences employed by the court below, the court below is justified in taking the measures to obtain the testimony portion of the above Nonparty 1, which corresponds to the original judgment, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to argue.

5. The grounds of appeal No. 5 as well as the grounds of appeal related to the attorneys’ right of attorney-at-law are also examined.

If it is proved to the extent that the substantial contents of a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership are not true, the presumption power of registration is reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236, Apr. 23, 191). According to the records, Defendant 1 did not purchase the above forest land from the Plaintiff, but he donated the above forest to the above Defendant after the registration of ownership transfer under a title trust was terminated. Thus, the above Defendant asserted that the above forest was registered under the name of the Defendant in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership Ownership, since the above Defendant asserted that the above forest was registered under the name of the above Defendant after the registration of ownership transfer was terminated under a title trust by Nonparty 3, his mother, the above defendant's letter of guarantee or confirmation that the above forest was purchased from the Plaintiff was false, and therefore the presumption power of ownership transfer registration under the above Defendant's name is reversed.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just to decide to the above purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures, or the falsity of a letter of guarantee and confirmation under the same Act, or in the incomplete hearing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

6. Defendant Ulsan City did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief within the prescribed period.

7. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)