According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the defendant purchased the above village structure improvement project of this case on December 18, 1986 and granted the right to construct a new house on a certain land within the project district as compensation instead of removing the existing house, and that the plaintiff was the owner of the house of this case, and that the defendant issued a disposition to refuse to grant the right to improve the house to the plaintiff on September 4, 1987 because he was the owner of the house of this case, and that the plaintiff was the de facto owner of the house of this case on April 12, 1976, the non-party 2 purchased the above house of this case from the non-party 6, the non-party 3, the agent of the non-party 3, the above non-party 1, the non-party 6, and the non-party 9, the non-party 1, the non-party 6, the above non-party 9, the non-party 1, who was de facto owner of the house of this case, and purchased the house of this case on the new site of this case.

In addition, the above fact-finding by the court below is the purport of rejecting the above fact-finding without recognizing the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 3 had been newly constructed by the non-party 6 was to shot down the previous house and new house, and in light of the case records, there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation affecting the conclusion of the judgment or by violating the rules of evidence as to the fact-finding of this part of the court below, which affected the conclusion

However, when adding up the contents of evidence Nos. 8-11,12,13 and evidence Nos. 13-8, which the court below rejected, the above non-party Nos. 13 and the above non-party Nos. 13-8, the above non-party No. 1 had no value at the time of management by the non-party No. 3, and the non-party No. 3 had no value at the time of management by the non-party No. 1, and the above non-party No. 3 sold this to the non-party No. 2, the value of the building of this case was 2,468,000 won at ordinary, and the above non-party No. 2 did not calculate the value of the building of this case. The non-party No. 1 had no property value at the time of the conclusion of the sale contract, and the above non-party No. 1 had no property value for the purpose of the non-party No. 1 to whom the above non-party No. 1 had no property value for the above non-party No. 1, 3.

Therefore, the court below should determine whether the above non-party 1 was the plaintiff or the above non-party 1 by clarifying the reasons why the non-party 1 did not claim the ownership for a long period of time after leaving the house of this case, and the purport thereof, and examining whether the house of this case was the owner of the site, and whether he renounced or transferred the ownership, whether he delegated the right to actually manage and dispose of the ownership, or whether he did not grant the right to reserved and dispose of the ownership, and by confirming the factual relations, the court below should determine whether the house of this case is the plaintiff or the above non-party 1. The court below's non-party 1 did not reach the court below's decision or it erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)