B. The purport of the provision of Article 555 of the Civil Act, which provides that a donation not in writing may be rescinded, and the degree of indication in writing of the donor’s intention to indicate that “in writing the intention of donation” was “written”

(c) The case holding that the proxy delegated by the judicial scrivener with the application for transfer registration of ownership and the sale certificate for the sale of real estate may be deemed as the document under the provisions of the same Act;

B. The purport of Article 555 of the Civil Act stipulating that “where the intention of donation has not been expressed in writing, any party may rescind it.” It is intended to prevent a donor from disposing of his/her property with no compensation in good faith and avoid dispute by clarifying the intention of the party. Therefore, in order to have expressed in writing the intention of donation “in order to have expressed in writing the intention of donation, it is sufficient that the donor indicated in writing that the donor would have clearly known the intention of donation free of charge to the other party.”

(c) The case holding that the delegation of an application for registration of transfer of ownership to a judicial scrivener and the sale certificate for the sale of real estate may be deemed as a written document under the provisions of the same Act;

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion are assessed against the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below as to the point that theory points out (it is recognized that the non-party net contributed 25,742 square meters to the plaintiff, 123 1,527 square meters prior to the 123-1,523-3 square meters prior to the 123-1, and 17,002 square meters prior to the 22-3 square meters prior to the 122-3 square meters prior to the 123-1, it is just in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and it shall not be deemed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence without any negligence in exercising the right to name, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, without any proper deliberation. In the end, it is not acceptable since it is merely against the judgment of the court below on the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts.

2. Determination on the third ground for appeal

The court below held that, in case where Defendant 1, one of the co-inheritorss of the deceased non-party 1, the plaintiff did not attend the resolution claiming consultation on the division of inherited property, and the wife of the deceased became a co-inheritors in the order of priority with a minor person, the act of holding a consultation on the division of inherited property as a minor person's person with parental authority constitutes "an act contrary to interest" under Article 921 of the Civil Act, and thus, the minor's special representative should be appointed to act for the minor. In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act contrary to the interest and interest between the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, and therefore there is no ground for the conclusion of the judgment below.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the above evidence, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's primary claim for the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure against the above woodland against the defendants, a part of the co-inheritors of the above non-party's co-inheritors, on March 14, 1985, on the ground that the non-party deceased's expression of intention to donate the above woodland 25,742 square meters was not indicated in writing, and whether it was issued with a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale, etc. (it can not be viewed as a written donation, even if the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer were prepared and kept in the judicial affairs office). The plaintiff's above donation contract was cancelled by the plaintiff's declaration of cancellation on the share of inheritance from the legal brief dated November 28, 191 delivered to the plaintiff on December 28, 191, and therefore, the defendants' defense against the above donation was dismissed.

B. However, the purport of Article 555 of the Civil Act stipulating that “where the intention of donation has not been expressed in writing, each party may rescind it.” It is intended to prevent a donor from disposing of property with no compensation in good faith and avoid dispute by clarifying the intention of the parties. Thus, in order to “drawing in writing”, it is sufficient for a donor to indicate in writing that the donor has clearly expressed in writing the intent of donation the other party’s property free of charge (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2634, Sept. 27, 198; 91Da6160, Sept. 10, 1991).

In this case, according to the relevant evidence and the record, the above non-party's deceased person's seal is affixed to each delegating person or seller's column. The plaintiff's above non-party's deceased person's deceased person's deceased person's deceased person's deceased 22,744m2 (which was not divided into 25,742m2 and 17,002m2,000 per annum 22-3m2,000 per each period. The plaintiff's above non-party's above plaintiff's above plaintiff's above real property can be seen as being entrusted to the judicial secretary Kimjin-jin or sold on February 13, 1985. The plaintiff's above plaintiff's above plaintiff's above real property can be seen as being the plaintiff's above's real property's above real property's deceased person's deceased's above real property's deceased's above real property was not indicated in the letter of delegation 5m2 (No. 13,44) and copy 2 (the above non-party's evidence No. 1356).

However, according to the records, although the defendants' legal representative responded to the establishment of the above documents (No. 13-3-6 of the evidence No. 13-6 of the above documents and disputed the establishment of the authenticity, the above documents are deemed to be identical to the seal impression No. 13-2 of the above documents (the certificate No. 2 of the above documents) where the defendants' legal representative recognizes the authenticity in view of the above documents, and thus, there is room for recognizing that the above documents were duly formed.

C. Nevertheless, the court below did not examine the defendants' legal representative whether the portion of the stamp image affixed on the above documents was authentic or not, and did not examine the authenticity of the above documents by giving the plaintiff's legal representative an opportunity to prove the authenticity of the above documents by comparison of the stamp image section, etc., and did not determine whether the above non-party deceased prepared and delivered the above documents to the plaintiff or whether the above documents constitute a document under Article 555 of the Civil Act concerning the donation of this case. However, the court below concluded that the above non-party deceased did not indicate the intent to donate the above real estate in writing to the plaintiff only for the reasons indicated in the decision. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles concerning donation which was not properly deliberated, or not by unlawful or written document, and it is clear that this error affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part concerning 25,742 square meters of woodland 22-1 forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination as to this part. The plaintiff's remaining appeal (as to 22-3 and 123-1 of the same Risan-gun) is dismissed and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing part. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.