The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

In light of the records, each evidence cited by the original judgment should be comprehensively examined, and even after examining Gap evidence 2, it should not be recognized that the plaintiff had the right to provisional disposition against the old soil that was ordered by the plaintiff. Thus, the original judgment should be justified, and there is no error of logical rules or rule of experience in the content of evidence preparation and fact-finding process in the original judgment, and there is no fact that there is an old soil where the defendants were ordered to prohibit disposal against the plaintiff by evidence. The original judgment is the old soil mined from the original mining area No. 42 of the ○○○, the ○○, the ○○, the ○, the ○○, the ○, the ○, the ○○, the ○, the ○○, the ○○, the ○○, the ○○, the ○○ on July 25, 1964, which was owned by the deceased non-party 1, was sold under the other inheritor's consent, and it is justified that the above provisional disposition was not owned by the defendant.

The above ground of appeal No. 4 is examined, and a person who entrusted a case to a lawyer for the purpose of cancelling an unfair provisional disposition can claim compensation as damages for a considerable amount of remuneration paid to the lawyer, and the court below's decision to the same effect is just, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro