The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the records, this case is a small claim under the Trial of Small Claims Act and can be appealed only if there is a reason falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 of the same Act in the judgment below. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the land in dispute is originally distributed by Nonparty 1, his father, and the land is owned by the plaintiff which was donated to the plaintiff after the repayment on May 30, 1957, and without any reason, Defendant 2 of the court of first instance completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name on October 25, 1965. Since the above registration was made to the defendants through Nonparty 3 and it was void without a cause, so the above registration is sought to implement the cancellation registration procedure. Thus, even if the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendants becomes invalid, it is not clear that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute, and thus, it cannot be justified in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's right of ownership transfer is not registered under the provisions of the Civil Act, and thus, it cannot be justified in the judgment of the court below.

Next, the argument that the non-party to whom the land was distributed by the Defendants acquired ownership by purchasing the land during repayment and acquiring the remaining repayment amount in full is premised on the invalidation of the cause for the registration of this case by the Defendants, as long as the court below judged that the registration of this case by the Defendants is null and void, it is not necessary to determine whether or not, and the reasons for the omission of

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)