1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above part of the building site was owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, excluding the above part of the non-party 2, excluding the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, excluding the above part of the building site and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the above part of the building site (the non-party 2, excluding the above part of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, excluding the above part of the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, who sold the above part of the building site and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 6.

2. However, when examining the sales contract (No. 4) between the plaintiff and the non-party 2, the court below, however, stated that the subject matter of the sale is about 79 square meters at the time of Jeonju ( Address 1 omitted) and below that "within the port boundaries". If the remaining land portion of the site of this case, excluding the part possessing the wall at 79 square meters on the register as the object of the sale, such as the defendant principal, is the object of the sale, it would be an example of measuring the specific part of the object of the sale agreed upon between the parties in the sales contract, even if it is not determined by the advance survey on the calculation of the amount of the purchase and sale price per response and the necessity for the future division of land, and even if it is not implemented in advance, it would be extremely difficult to say that it falls under this case only because the location and the number of the current wall boundary and how the location and the number of the cadastral map are different.

In this regard, it is reasonable and reasonable that the above sales contract is indicated as "within the boundary of the present boundary" rather than the part (A) of this case, but rather as the part of the letter of the above site that was already transferred by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 4 and the part that had no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, as one of the 6bbebs of the above site that was disposed of by Nonparty 2 and the land cadastre division, the plaintiff's chief opinion is reasonable and reasonable, and the testimony of Nonparty 5, who was directly prepared for the above sales contract as a substitute, cannot be acknowledged as credibility of the statement because it is the above purport.

In addition, according to the testimony of non-party 6 of the court below employed by the court below, the part of the defendant's possession of the above land was stated as if there was no objection from the plaintiff. However, according to the evidence No. 4-1 of the court below, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff sent to the defendant on March 27, 1979 a content-certified mail demanding the return of the above part of the land to his domicile on the ground of illegal occupation, and unless there are special circumstances, this mail is presumed to have been delivered to the defendant within a reasonable period of time. If the part of the land, such as the defendant's head, was entrusted to the plaintiff only with the title of the registration excluding the sale purpose, it is presumed that the defendant would refuse the plaintiff's request for return, terminate the title trust, and try to recover the title of the registration, and even if there are no special circumstances that need to continue the registration of the title of the above land, it is hard to say that it belongs to the plaintiff's name after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant.

In light of the above, in the sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 2, the evidence of the court below, including the non-party 2's statement that only the remaining part of the land was the object of sale, except for the non-party 4 possession portion of the land of this case 6bbeb and the non-party 2, as well as the non-party 2's non-party 9

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the judgment of the value of evidence and the misunderstanding of evidence, which affected the judgment, and this constitutes the ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion,

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)