The court below comprehensively considered the whole purport of the parties' arguments as a result of the examination of the testimony of the witness Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, the result of examination of the criminal records of the defendant himself, etc., the defendant may recognize the fact that he received the real estate which was the object of this case from Nonparty 4, who started his marital life. However, through records, the court below removed all the above evidence, but the following facts are as follows. In other words, the witness's clothes are merely a person who was the mother of the defendant's house, and the plaintiff should not cover the fact that the plaintiff donated the real estate. After this, the court below's testimony of Nonparty 3 and the result of examination of the criminal records of the court below cannot be said to be any evidence which was written by the court below on this issue. The court below's reasoning that the court below's decision on this issue is insufficient to recognize that all the evidence used to recognize the fact of donation based on the facts of donation was not sufficient to acknowledge that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no clear reason to acknowledge the facts of donation from the court below's opinion on this point of view.

It is subject to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act before the amendment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)