Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Ownership transfer registry presumption binding on the former owner
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2023Da316363 (judgment)
Case name: 대여금[소유권이전등기의 추정력이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where ownership of real property has been transferred by registration, does the presumption that the registered holder acquired ownership by a lawful cause of transfer bind the former owner as well, and who must prove that the transfer was made for a cause other than the one recorded in the certificate of registered particulars?
Holding
It does. The registered holder is presumed, against the former owner no less than against third parties, to have acquired ownership by a lawful cause of transfer, so whoever says the transfer was made for a cause other than the one recorded in the certificate of registered particulars must assert and prove it. Applying that rule, the Supreme Court held that the court below had made no finding on the presumption, on its scope or on whether it was rebutted, and had found a sale concluded in July 2012 on the circumstances set out in its judgment alone.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 경우 그 등기명의자는 제3자에 대해서뿐만 아니라 전 소유자에 대해서도 적법한 등기원인에 의하여 소유권을 취득한 것으로 추정되므로, 등기사항증명서에 기재된 등기원인과 다른 원인으로 소유권이전등기가 이루어졌다고 다투는 경우에는 이를 다투는 측에서 그 사실을 주장·증명하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate has been completed, the person registered as the title holder is presumed to have acquired ownership by virtue of a just title not only against third parties but also against the former owner; therefore, in a case where it is disputed that a registration of the transfer of ownership was made on a ground different from the cause of registration entered in the certificate of registered matters, the party disputing it must allege and prove that fact.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
등기사항증명서에 기재된 등기원인과 다른 원인으로 소유권이전등기가 이루어졌다고 다투는 경우에는 이를 다투는 측에서 그 사실을 주장·증명하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In a case where it is disputed that a registration of the transfer of ownership was made on a ground different from the cause of registration entered in the certificate of registered matters, the party disputing it must allege and prove that fact.
Factors
- 부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 경우
- 그 등기명의자는 제3자에 대해서뿐만 아니라 전 소유자에 대해서도 적법한 등기원인에 의하여 소유권을 취득한 것으로 추정되므로
- 등기사항증명서에 기재된 등기원인과 다른 원인으로 소유권이전등기가 이루어졌다고 다투는 경우에는
- 이를 다투는 측에서 그 사실을 주장·증명하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• Where a registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate has been completed,
• the person registered as the title holder is presumed to have acquired ownership by virtue of a just title not only against third parties but also against the former owner; therefore,
• in a case where it is disputed that a registration of the transfer of ownership was made on a ground different from the cause of registration entered in the certificate of registered matters,
• the party disputing it must allege and prove that fact
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 3. 13. 선고 2009다105215 판결(공2014상, 823)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215 decided March 13, 2014 (Gong 2014 Sang, 823)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2014. 3. 13. 선고 2009다105215 판결(공2014상, 823)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
등기사항증명서에 기재된 등기원인과 다른 원인으로 소유권이전등기가 이루어졌다고 다투는 경우에는 이를 다투는 측에서 그 사실을 주장·증명하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In a case where it is disputed that a registration of the transfer of ownership was made on a ground different from the cause of registration entered in the certificate of registered matters, the party disputing it must allege and prove that fact.
Open question and revisit condition
What evidence, and how strong, must the party contesting the register produce before a sale concluded on a date other than the recorded cause is found to have rebutted the presumption of lawful transfer?
The remand judgment of the Suwon District Court will show how the presumption and the burden on the plaintiff are applied on this record. A later Supreme Court decision widening or narrowing the presumption, or an amendment to Article 186 of the Civil Act or Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act on the burden of proof, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 6 December 2023 (2022Na76078), found that in around July 2012 the plaintiff sold the property to the defendant, receiving part of the price of KRW 1.05 billion first as the loan of KRW 800 million and the balance of KRW 250 million later, with ownership to be transferred on payment, and that the plaintiff lent the defendant KRW 100 million of the loan and later an additional KRW 60,324,152. On that basis it treated those sums as loans to the defendant.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the defendant, as registered holder under the cause of transfer recorded as a sale of 4 December 2018, was presumed to have acquired ownership, and that it was the plaintiff who had to assert and prove a sale concluded on a different date. Since the court below had not judged the presumption, its scope or its rebuttal and had relied only on the circumstances it set out, it had misapprehended the law on the effect of registration and failed to hold the necessary hearing, with an effect on the judgment. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Suwon District Court by unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A dispute over real property in which no ownership transfer registration has been completed, since the presumption in this decision arises from the completed registration.
- A dispute in which no one contests the recorded cause of transfer, so that the presumption of a lawful cause is not in issue.
- A case in which the party disputing the recorded cause has already asserted and proved a transfer made for a cause on another date, so that the presumption has been rebutted.
Record verification notes
Obtain the certificate of registered particulars and read its recorded cause of transfer and its date against the date pleaded for the sale, since the presumption runs from what the register records. Then check whether the file contains proof, by the party contesting the register, of a sale concluded on another date, as that party must assert and prove it; the court below decided on the circumstances set out in its judgment without addressing the presumption, its scope or its rebuttal at all. This decision concerns only the presumption and who must rebut it, not the validity of the sale itself.
From the official text
Points at issue
부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기의 추정력이 전 소유자에 대해서도 미치는지 여부(적극) 및 등기사항증명서에 기재된 등기원인과 다른 원인으로 소유권이전등기가 이루어졌다고 다투는 경우, 이를 다투는 측에서 그 사실을 주장·증명하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the presumptive effect of a registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate extends to the former owner (affirmative), and whether, in a case where it is disputed that a registration of the transfer of ownership was made on a ground different from the cause of registration entered in the certificate of registered matters, the party disputing it must allege and prove that fact (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 경우 그 등기명의자는 제3자에 대해서뿐만 아니라 전 소유자에 대해서도 적법한 등기원인에 의하여 소유권을 취득한 것으로 추정되므로, 등기사항증명서에 기재된 등기원인과 다른 원인으로 소유권이전등기가 이루어졌다고 다투는 경우에는 이를 다투는 측에서 그 사실을 주장·증명하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제186조, 민사소송법 제288조[증명책임]
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger