The part of the costs of appeal brought by the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff's and the party's intervenor's appeal.

No. 1. The court below examined the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 6-1 and No. 6-2 of the evidence No. 1, which were adopted by the court below as evidence, and decided that the defendant purchased the land of this case in the light of the evidence No. 1-1, No. 6-1, and No. 6-2 of the same book No. 7-2 as evidence, although the court below stated the No. 2-2 of evidence No. 2-2 of the No. 7, No. 7, No. 1-2 of the No. 2-2 of the No. 7, No. 1-2 of the No. 1, No. 1-2 of the No. 1, and the original document No. 1-2 of the original document No. 1940, and the court below determined that the defendant purchased the land of this case in the light of the evidence No. 2-1, it should be deemed that there was no violation of the No. 6-1, as evidence of this case.

Although the evidence Nos. 2 and 2-1 and 2-2 are merely merely a simple copy of the theory of lawsuit, and only this is not sufficient evidence to form evidence to establish facts, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is nothing more than the purport that the defendant purchased the land of this case according to the reasoning of the judgment below, and if the evidence presented in recognizing the above facts by the records is examined according to the records, the above facts cannot be recognized even except for the above evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-1 and 2, which are not admitted as evidence, and there is an error of law of evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2 which are not admitted as evidence, it cannot be accepted as the grounds for reversal of the judgment in this case.

The first instance court is one of the documents verified by the Seongbuk-gu Office on August 31, 1968, and the method and purport of the preparation are as follows: (a) on August 4-9 of 14, 1968, the examination of the classification of the use of private forest in Yang-gun, Gyeonggi-do; and (b) on August 4 of 14, 1968, it can be recognized that the above Nowon-gu Office transferred from the above Nowon-gu Office to Seoul Metropolitan Government and kept in the same Si office in accordance with the method and purport of the documents to be prepared by a public official in accordance with the method and intent of the document, and there is no violation of law by the court below in this case without any counter-proof. The court below did not have any error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on public documents.

No. 4, even if part of No. 4-1, 2, and 3-2 of the No. 4-1, 2, and 3 of the No. 4-2 of the No. 2-1, 2-2 of the No. 3 of the No. 4 is merely a copy of the No. 1, which is only a copy of the No. 2-1, 2-2 of the No. 2-2, which cannot be admitted as evidence, the fact that the remainder of the No. 1 in the No. 2-1, excluding the part of the No. 33, or the forest of this case is treated as state property, and it cannot

According to the records, if Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3 and 5-1, 5-2 were examined, Eul evidence Nos. 5 with 1, 2, 3 with 1, 2, and 3 with 3-1, 3 with 3-2, and they were submitted with 3-2 as one document, and the plaintiff's 5-2 (registration certificate) with 5-2 as the benefit of the defendant's 5-2 as evidence, it can be viewed that the plaintiff adopted Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3 with 5-1 of 5-2 as evidence, and it cannot be concluded that there was no omission of determination as to the 5-2 of 5-2 as to the 5-3-3 of 5-3 as evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's testimony as to the 3-5-2 of 5-2 as evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or 5-3-2's/3 of evidence.

Nos. 6 and 7, and records examine the testimony of Non-party 4 and Non-party 5 in comparison with the circumstances of the instant case in which the court below took part of each of these testimony during the pleading, and there is no violation of the law of evidence by taking the testimony in violation of the rule of experience and adopting clear false testimony. In this regard, the argument of the lawsuit is that the court below criticizes the confirmation of legitimate facts in the original judgment on the ground of the testimony portion not adopted by the court below. It is not acceptable to accept it.

(2) We examine the Intervenor’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below stated that the above real estate was modified as owned by the defendant unless there are special circumstances since it was merely a dispute between the parties to this case's registration for preservation of the defendant's name, and the defendant rejected the intervenor's assertion that it should be cancelled since this is an invalid registration without any legal ground. Thus, even if the court below's examination of evidence No. 5-3 (forest possession certification) has affixed seals without the name of the guarantor's statement, and there is no delivery between the document and the document and the non-party No. 3, and the part of the testimony of the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 6 cannot be viewed as a document without any evidence, and it cannot be viewed as invalid for the court below's reasoning that the defendant's assertion that there was no violation of the law of evidence No. 1 and the document No. 5-3 of this case's reasoning that the court below did not directly establish the facts that the defendant had purchased the above land from the intervenor of this case and there was no error in the court's finding that it was no violation of evidence No.

No. 2, since the original judgment No. 5-3 cannot be deemed to have been unilaterally forged by the defendant, the original judgment is justified in the judgment below that the land of this case is presumed to be owned by the defendant under the above preservation registration on the premise that the registration of preservation of the defendant's name of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void, and on the premise that the registration of preservation of the defendant's name of this case made by this judgment cannot be deemed null and void, and there is no error of law in the judgment below that the party intervenor who asserted that the registration of this case is null and void, should prove the facts constituting the ground for invalidation, and since the defendant led to the confession that he purchased the real estate of this case from the party intervenor, the above preservation registration cannot be deemed to have been registered as the ground for invalidation unless the defendant proves

No. 3, since it is difficult to acknowledge the facts established in the original judgment based on the records, if comprehensive review of the evidence stated in the original judgment is conducted based on the records, it is difficult to acknowledge the facts established in the original judgment, and it is not possible to specify in the reasoning of the judgment any one of such evidences in the case where the facts are acknowledged based on comprehensive evidence, but it is not possible for the original judgment to specify in the reasoning of the judgment. Therefore, there is no error in the omission of reasoning on the ground that one of the evidences adopted in the case where the facts were recognized by comprehensive evidence, but the court below did not specify the

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court