The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the plaintiff purchased 1001 square meters from the deceased non-party 1 on May 8, 1956, the plaintiff entrusted the non-party 2 with the procedure of the transfer registration by obtaining documents necessary for the transfer registration from the deceased non-party 1, and the non-party 2 entrusted the transfer registration by using the documents without the plaintiff's consent. Thus, the non-party 69 square meters on May 10, 1961, the plaintiff purchased the seals and documents from the defendant 6, and the defendant 7 purchased them from the defendant 6 on May 10, 1961, and the non-party 2's testimony (the witness was withdrawn from the court of first instance as the defendant, and his statement as the defendant does not affect the remaining co-defendant) and the non-party 3's testimony cannot be rejected as the witness's testimony without the plaintiff's testimony as the witness's testimony in the court below's rejection of the above non-party 3's testimony.

No. 2, as long as the purchaser of farmland is not a farmer, it is not necessary to conduct an ex officio investigation unless the party asserts otherwise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 66Da2, Mar. 8, 1966). Thus, it cannot be said that the original judgment is in violation of the mandatory law.

No. 3 and this case’s title 1001, which is the premise that the registration of transfer has been completed in the name of Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 from the name of Defendant 2 in the first instance court, and that the name of the above registered titleholder is registered in the name of Defendant 7, the registration of the above registered titleholder is presumed lawful. Thus, as long as the court below rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the above registration is invalid, it is no longer necessary to examine and determine the background and circumstances of the acquisition of rights to each of the above Defendant’s main real estate, etc., and it is not necessary to examine and determine the process and circumstances of the acquisition of rights to each of the above Defendant’s main real estate. Accordingly, we cannot accept any error of law in the original judgment without examining and determining this point.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s most leapul and the Dong Kim Byung-gun, Counsel for the defendant’s appeal.

The fact that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case and the plaintiff cultivated the land of this case alone is insufficient to prove the fact that each registration of this case by the defendant 4, the defendant 5, and the defendant 7, the registered titleholder of this case, is null and void. Thus, even if the testimony by the non-party 2, the non-party 4, and the non-party 3 is credibility, the court below did not err in its rejection of the testimony because the non-party 2, the non-party 4, and the non-party 3 did not prove the facts of the plaintiff's proposal. In addition, even if the records were recorded, the court below rejected the above witness's testimony in light of each testimony by the non-party 5, the non-party 6, the non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 9, and each testimony by the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 8, and the non-party 9, respectively, cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)