The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

However, based on evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 purchased and managed the forest of this case from the non-party 2 and made a donation to the defendant 1 around January 28, 1961. Thus, if the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have made a false statement on the original copy of the notarial deed, and even if the registration of ownership transfer is made in accordance with the above Article, the registration of ownership transfer in its name cannot be deemed to be invalid because the registration of ownership transfer in its name is consistent with the true state of rights as at the time of the registration of ownership transfer, and even if the registration of ownership transfer is not reflected in the process of the alteration of rights as at the time of registration of ownership transfer, as long as the registration titleholder is the real owner of ownership, it shall be deemed to be a valid registration consistent with the substantive relation (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da365, May 25, 1965). If the court below acknowledged that the non-party 3 sells the forest of this case to the non-party 1, and if it donated 1 directly made a registration to the defendant 2.

In addition, Defendant 1 passed through the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the same ground as the original judgment, and the evidence cited by the court below alone cannot be deemed to conform to the substantive rights. In addition, as to the circumstances within the evidence, the court below is presumed to be able to evaluate differently from the original judgment, or there is no ground to criticize the fact that the court below duly conducted by its free evaluation based on the original judgment based on the part of the original evidence, and according to the original judgment, the court below does not recognize the gift facts only by the purport of the pleading by Defendant 1, and it is without merit in all the arguments on this point.

In addition, according to Gap evidence No. 8, the forest for which registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership is sought is obvious that it is a forest different from the forest in this case, and it is not identical to the subject matter of this case and the subject matter of lawsuit. In a common civil lawsuit case which is judged by the pleadings principle, the case is different, and there are more than the judge who is judged by the pleading principle, and there are cases where recognition differs depending on the parties' proof and the appellate donation by the psychological court, it is inevitable, and it is not inevitable to record the fact-finding of the court which is judged later by the fact-finding of the court which is judged later.

Therefore, each of the appeals by the plaintiffs 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 judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu