The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

According to the records, Defendant 2’s legal representative is served with the original copy of the judgment of the court below on January 5, 1981 and submitted the petition of appeal to the court below on January 21 of the same year. Thus, the appeal is merely intended to make a peremptory period for filing an appeal, and the defects cannot be corrected.

2. The Defendants’ attorney's grounds of appeal are examined as to Defendant 1.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to create a playground site for the plaintiff's management from the deceased non-party, who is the father of the defendant 1's father on December 30, 1957, the court below rejected the facts in violation of the rules of evidence as to the sale contract of the above land, since the purchase of 91 square meters, which is part of 634 square meters in the previous land of this case before the division into the land of this case, was 105 square meters in 105 square meters in 100 square meters in 105,000 won in 195,000 won in 195, and the price was paid in full, and there was no independent lot number of the above purchase land at that time, the school register and basic property register did not contain the above land lot number of the above school playground site (name 2 omitted) or the expected lot number after division, and there was no violation of the rules of experience as to the sale contract of the real estate, or there was no violation of the rules of evidence.

With respect to the second ground:

The court's exercise of the right to explanation is a contradiction in the allegations of the parties in order to clarify the case, incomplete and unclear points, giving an opportunity to supplement them, and urging the submission of evidence for the dispute. Thus, even if the non-party, who is the previous owner of the land, did not recommend the submission of evidence for the requirements of legal effect or means of attack and defense which are not asserted by the parties, it cannot be said that there was an error in exercising the right to explanation. According to the records, even though the plaintiff died on March 31, 1963 and his children, including the wife and the defendant 1, who are the head of the South and North Korea, died of March 31, 1963 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on this land, the registration of ownership preservation in the sole name of defendant 1 is denied as to the assertion that the registration of the invalidity of the cause is invalid. Thus, even if the court below did not examine whether Defendant 1 received the entire donation of the land or whether the remaining co-property successors have renounced their inheritance shares, it cannot be said that the right to explanation or incomplete.

3. Therefore, Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed, and Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)