The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

With respect to No. 1:

However, if the registration of this case has been judged only as the presumption of theory, it is clear that the judgment of the original court and the judgment of the original court enter the substantive relationship and entered the substantive right relationship and judged its effect, and it has been obvious in the original judgment that there is no illegality in the lawsuit.

With respect to the second ground:

However, it is difficult to say that there is a theory illegality in the judgment that it is insufficient to find it as a false registration by combining the appraisal results of the non-party and other evidences rejected. There is no argument.

With respect to the third point:

However, it is difficult to say that there is a theory of illegality in the decision of the court below based on the view of party members (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da7378 delivered on June 28, 68, 68Da7378 delivered on June 28, 20

With respect to the fourth point:

However, the so-called constructive confession, which is viewed as a confession of the facts alleged by the other party because the party did not appear on the date for pleading, is different from that which the original confession cannot be removed without permission, and after that, the effect of the constructive confession can be deleted as a dispute over the date for pleading. According to the records, the defendant's agent can see the fact that he left the court below's 8th day of pleading on April 15, 100, and the plaintiff's assertion. In the same purport, the decision of the court below on the premise that the effect of the above constructive confession has ceased to exist is correct, and there is no argument.

The appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)