Usually, in Analysis, this follows by definition, ie by the way those functions are built in the first place.
Sometimes, one defines e^x, eg by its series or other means; then we note it is strictly increasing, so we can find an inverse function, and we note this inverse: ln(x), from which follows its usual properties.
But one can also *define* ln(x), eg by the integral of 1/t from 1 to x, for x>0; we then note it is strictly increasing, and we call its inverse function exp(x) ( or e^x ), from which follows its usual properties.
Of course, one could define ln(x) by a series, then e^x by a series, and later show they are the inverse of one another... But that would be necessarily complicated.
So it all depends how YOU encountered these functions, and if it was one of the two first ways, the answer is then basic as you said.
/Edit: a simpler way to state the above is this:
It makes not much sense to ask "why" ln(x) is the inverse of e^x, since it is *defined* that way, it is *constructed* that way.
That's the *fundamental* perspective.