The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "When a judge was involved in the previous trial which became an objection against a judgment on the case" means that he was involved in the verdict by participating in the final pleadings of the previous trial, and does not include the case where he was involved in the previous trial or examination of evidence. "A judge participating in the original judgment" under Article 406 (3) of the same Act refers to only the reversed original judgment, and it does not include the original judgment that was reversed before it. It is the opinion of the party member. According to the records of the case, the non-party was the presiding judge before it was remanded, but it is obvious that the non-party was involved in the fact-finding and examination of evidence at the original court before it was remanded but there was no participation in the final trial, and it cannot be said that there was an error in violation of Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 406 (3) of the same Act, and there is no independent opinion that the above judge violated Article 37 and Article 45 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

According to the records, the plaintiff can be found in the first instance court that recognized the authenticity of the evidence No. 3 at the court of first instance. Thus, it cannot be found that the court below erred in finding facts by adopting the evidence No. 3 without dispute over the establishment of the original judgment, and according to the reasoning of the original judgment, it can be found that the non-party No. 1, the head of the non-party No. 1, the head of the non-party No. 2, recognized that the non-party No. 3 had the seal impression of the deceased No. 3 with the seal impression of the deceased No. 1, 2, and 3, and that the non-party No. 3 was indirectly rejected the plaintiff's evidence objection that the non-party No. 3 was affixed with the seal of the deceased No. 3 by using the seal of the deceased No. 3, the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of judgment, and since there was no influence on the result of the original judgment, it cannot be argued that the court below did not have any error in failing to examine this.

Judgment on the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the real estate was originally owned by the non-party Lee Jong-soo, but the non-party died on August 13, 195, and the plaintiff's punishment was co-inheritors. The above double water sales contract concluded on July 1, 1960 between the non-party Lee Jong-young and the defendant Cho Young-young on the real estate of this case was null and void since the above double water was without any authority. Since the plaintiff's punishment on July 7, 1960 was agreed to adjust the inheritance of the non-party Lee Jong-young and the plaintiff Lee Jong-young's punishment, the non-party Lee Jong-soo, the head of Lee Jong-ok, had the above Lee Jong-chul, the above Lee Lee's co-inheritors's seal impression affixed to the above Lee Jong-ok, and the above fact that the above double water was disposed of by the non-party Lee Jong-ok's signature and the above non-party Lee Jong-young's signature's signature and the above non-party Lee Jong-soo's signature's signature's evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The 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 Il-young (Presiding Justice)