The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff and the non-party was made, and judged that the above land is presumed to be co-owned by the plaintiff, etc.., and held on August 1, 1972 that the non-party 1, the original owner of the above land, sold 80 square meters, including the land in dispute in this case, to the defendant on June 1, 1980, and sold only the remainder except the above 80 square meters out of the above land to the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, who sold the above 80 square meters out of the above land. The above 80 square meters out of the above 80 square meters out of the above 80 square meters of the above 80 square meters of the above 80 square meters of the above 80 square meters of the above 80 square meters of the above 80 square meters of the above 80-mentioned land, but the court below's decision that the above part of the plaintiff's land cannot be found to be justified.

In the case where the registration of ownership transfer has been made from the seller for the whole land which was not divided on the register when the land was sold to the buyer, the title trust relation was established between the above two persons unless there are special circumstances as to the part of the land which the seller did not sell to the buyer. The third person who acquired the whole land including the part which was not first sold from the buyer who was the title trustee and received the registration of ownership transfer from the third person who received the registration of ownership transfer shall also acquire the ownership as to the part which was not first sold. As such, as in the novel theory, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 purchased only the part 80 square meters of the land as indicated in the judgment of the non-party 1 and the above 80 square meters of the total land, even if the above 80 square meters of the total land was not divided on the register, if the plaintiff et al. purchased the whole land from the above non-party 2 and received the registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2.

In theory, the plaintiff et al. actively participated in the act of breach of trust by the above non-party 2 et al. who is in the position of the trustee and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the above 80 square meters, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff et al. concerning this part is an invalid registration based on anti-social order act. However, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is not asserted by the fact-finding court, and there is no such circumstance in the

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.