[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing on the judgment on the legitimate existence of power of representation concerning the disposal of land purchased

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing on the judgment on the lawful existence of power of representation concerning the disposal of the purchased land

As to the misapprehension of legal principles

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above non-party 1 was the actual purchaser of the land of this case and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the defendant 2 who acquired the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff with only the title under the contract, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of defendant 2 as a result of the agreement of intermediate omission between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The non-party 3's testimony of the court of first instance consistent with the defendants' assertion that the non-party 4's testimony and the evidence Nos. 1 and 6-1 and 2 are not reliable, and the above non-party 1 was not entitled to legally represent the plaintiff, unless the above non-party 1 had the authority to transfer the ownership of the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff for payment of damages liability to the plaintiff 2, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the non-party 1 had no authority to legally conclude that the non-party 1 had no authority to transfer ownership as a legal act as invalid.

There is no reason to challenge this issue.

As to the violation of the rules of evidence

According to the records of this case, on July 13, 190, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from Defendant 1 and paid the price in full, and requested the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty 1, who is his private relative. On July 29, 1991, the above non-party 1 entrusted with Defendant 2, and filed the lawsuit of this case seeking the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant 2 on July 29, 1991, and then withdrawn the lawsuit without undergoing the procedure for the procedure for the application of the witness, but the lawsuit was withdrawn with the consent of the defendants. In the trial process, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for the registration of ownership transfer after examining only the non-party 3, who was the witness at the request of the defendants without internal attendance, and the judgment of the court below, which rejected the plaintiff's request for the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 1, which was the plaintiff's non-party 2, who was the appellant, was the first instance court's non-party 4, and dismissed the above judgment.

However, according to the above non-party 3's testimony, unlike the plaintiff's assertion, the above non-party 1, as a relative student of the plaintiff, sold another land to the defendant 2 by his brokerage, was unable to execute the contract, and he purchased the land of this case with the plaintiff who is one's own title, he would be entitled to take over the land of this case as payment in kind. The above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2 were involved in the process of implementing the sales contract and transferring the ownership of this case. The plaintiff and the above non-party 2, as to the land of this case after the completion of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant 2, were found to have been about six times from the beginning of September 191 to February 192, the real estate brokerage office of this case, and the defendant 2, who did not know that the above non-party 1 had the right to take part in the transfer registration of ownership after the completion of the transfer registration, requested the plaintiff's testimony to the non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's testimony.

On the other hand, the court below testified to the effect that the above non-party 4's testimony of the above non-party 2, which was the opposite evidence to deny the credibility of the testimony of the above non-party 3, was the broker for the transaction of the land of this case, and that he agreed to pay the balance of the land of this case and transfer of ownership to the non-party 2 only through him, and that the non-party 1's testimony was wrong when he knew that the non-party 2's transfer of ownership was registered after he knew that the non-party 3's testimony was not registered. However, although the defendants testified that the non-party 1 did not object to the cross-examination, the above non-party 2 continued to participate in the above non-party 3's conclusion of the sale contract or the payment of intermediate payment of the above non-party 3's testimony at the time of the above testimony, the non-party 1 to 4's testimony was not sufficient to prove that the above non-party 2's testimony was not related to the non-party 1 to the above non-party 9's testimony.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the above non-party 3's credibility by the evidence alone without making a serious effort to discover the substance by hearing the testimony of the above non-party 1 or non-party 2 who directly participated in the agreement of the intermediate omission registration. Furthermore, the court below's rejection on the ground that there is no evidence consistent with the defendants' assertion is an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and such an error of law does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)