Presumption history of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for Registration of Ownership Transfer.

The presumption of transfer registration under Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969) shall be presumed to be registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship made in accordance with the procedures provided for in the same Act, and the assurance of the special reasons provided for in Article 5 of the same Act shall be maintained unless there is any proof as to the special reasons, such as that the letter of guarantee and the confirmation under Article

Articles 4 and 5 (Law No. 2111, May 21, 1969) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969)

Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 5 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na533 delivered on October 15, 1981

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

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal on additional appellate brief are examined to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in the name of the deceased non-party 1, the original owner of the real estate in this case was registered under the name of the deceased non-party 1 who was the original owner, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership in Forest Land under the name of three persons, including defendant 1, defendant 2, and defendant 3 on the ground of subsequent sale, but since the above deceased non-party 1, the original owner, was declared missing, the above ownership transfer registration was the owner before the date of sale in the above registry in the adjudication of disappearance, and thus, the above ownership transfer registration was broken out.

(2) However, according to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969), since the ownership transfer registration under this Act is a person who had succeeded to the right of forest by a registered titleholder and has failed to register or has succeeded to the right, and his/her agent can file an application for registration independently by attaching a certificate for registration and a letter of guarantee under Article 5 of this Act in lieu of a certificate for registration and a certificate of registration in lieu of a certificate for registration, it is presumed that the ownership transfer registration completed under the aforesaid Special Measures is completed in accordance with due process and consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and it is presumed that the registration is consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Unless there is any assertion that the letter of guarantee and certificate under Article 5 of the aforesaid Special Measures for the Registration is false or forged, or that it is not a legitimate registration due to any other reason, such presumption is not broken.

In this case, the Defendants’ assertion is that Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, etc. purchased each of the instant real estate from the deceased Nonparty 1, the registered titleholder, through the deceased Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer directly from the deceased Nonparty 1 under the aforesaid Act. As seen above, the registration of ownership transfer under the aforesaid Act is permissible not only in the case of direct transfer from the registered titleholder, but also in the case of transfer through a third party. Thus, the date of purchase by the above Defendant, etc. is later than the date of the deceased Nonparty 1’s death, the presumption of registration in the above Defendants’ name cannot be deemed to have been broken.

(3) Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership and the burden of proof, thereby finding the Defendants liable to prove that the registration conforms to the substantive relations. This is a serious violation of law against justice and equity unless the judgment of the court below is reversed. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case to be tried again is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)