The meaning of false letter of guarantee or confirmation that the presumption power of preservation of ownership is reversed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer and the method of determining its falsity.

The registration made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982, the invalidation) is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of registration of ownership preservation is not broken unless a letter of guarantee or written confirmation under the above Act on Special Measures is proved to be false or forged, or not legally registered due to other reasons. The false letter of guarantee or written confirmation here refers to a letter of guarantee or written confirmation that the substantial contents of the reason for the change of right are inconsistent with the truth. In light of the fact that the above Act permits registration to the actual transferee of real estate inconsistent with the process of the change of right, even if the name of the seller or written confirmation of the certificate of guarantee or written confirmation is written differently from the actual transferee, or if only the present state of right is written without the reason for the change of specific right, it can not be said that the registration alone has broken the legitimate presumption. Provided, That if it is proven that the substantial contents of the registration are not proven by other data, it should be presumed to be sufficient.

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

Supreme Court Decision 91Da2236 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1470) Supreme Court Decision 91Da37157 delivered on January 17, 1992 (Gong1992, 865) Supreme Court Decision 97Da17162, 17179 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2711)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Samyang, Attorneys Lee Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na16867 delivered on June 18, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A registration made under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562, effective) is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of registration of ownership preservation is not broken unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the said Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that the registration has not been duly registered for any other reason. Here, a false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation which does not fit the truth. In light of the fact that the said Act permits registration that is inconsistent with the process of change of right to the actual transferee of real estate, the fact that the name of the seller or the date of purchase is different from the actual transferee of the real estate, or that the registration is omitted, and only if it is stated only in the current status of right, it can not be said that the legal presumption of registration is broken unless it has been proven that the actual contents of the registration are not true by other data.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that Non-party 2, the plaintiff's original name in the old land register on the forest of this case, was registered as the owner based on macroscopic evidence, and that Non-party 3, Non-party 4, and Non-party 5 obtained a guarantee that the above defendant actually owns the forest of this case, which is unregistered, from Non-party 3, Non-party 4, and Non-party 5, on January 14, 1970, and completed registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the above defendant on June 24, 1985. Meanwhile, the non-party 3, the guarantor, did not verify the ownership of the forest of this case at the time of preparing the above guarantee certificate, but it was just and reasonable for the plaintiff to have sold all the land of this case, which is in the name of Non-party 1, the plaintiff's original name, and it cannot be found that the above defendant violated the legal principles on the presumption of ownership preservation of forest of this case and forest of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)