According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case by the non-party 1, etc., who is the owner of the land of this case, the court below held that the non-party 4's testimony of the non-party 3, who is the non-party 1, etc., is not trustable, and the non-party 1's testimony of the non-party 3-1 of the evidence No. 3-1 of the above evidence No. 1, it is hard to conclude that the non-party 4's testimony of the above non-party 1, etc. is the non-party 2 and the owner on the register of the non-party 4 of the non-party 1, the land of this case, which is the adjacent land of this case, is the non-party 2, but it is hard to find that the non-party 1's testimony of this case is the location of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's land of this case.

The fact that Nonparty 4 filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the deceased Nonparty 2 on October 30, 1956 against the deceased Nonparty 2, whose name the Nonparty 4’s protocol was Nonparty 2 and the Nonparty 4’s transcript was the same, and obtained a favorable judgment by this decision, and registered the ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 4 and transferred the registration to the Defendant’s name is apparent by the record.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1-1 (No. 1) and No. 3-1 (Land Register) of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, as the (date of birth omitted), died on March 18, 1956. Nonparty 2, as the owner of the above land, transferred his permanent domicile from 14 in Daegu City to 6 in 1917, and Nonparty 2 was assessed on Nov. 1, 1910 on the land in Daegu ( Address 1 omitted). Accordingly, Nonparty 1’s fleet 2 was alive at the time of the situation of the above land, and his permanent domicile and address on its land cadastre at that time, and there is a high possibility of being the same person as the owner on the land cadastre. However, according to the evidence No. 1 (No. 1) of the Defendant’s previous owner, Nonparty 4’s previous owner, who was the owner of the above land, and Nonparty 1’s previous owner was aware of the fact that he was deceased on March 18, 1986.

Thus, the non-party 2, who is the fleet of the non-party 4, did not continue to exist at the time of the situation and could not find any connection with the owner on the land cadastre, so the possibility of being the same as the non-party 2 on the land cadastre would be rare.

According to the evidence No. 3-2 (Land Register), the neighboring land of this case, or the previous lot number of the land of this case ( Address 1 omitted) can be seen to have been divided into ( Address 4 omitted), and as such, Nonparty 2, the owner of the above ( Address 1 omitted) land, cannot be readily determined as Nonparty 1’s line, on the ground that there is no special entry in the register or land cadastre on ( Address 3 omitted).

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)