(a) Examples recognized as being a non-corporate body with the ability of being a party;

B. Probative value of documents prepared during the proceeding

A. The plaintiff Il-dong, one of whose administrative district unit consists of the residents of Dolsan-gun, Yangsan-gun, one of whose own purposes is, unlike the simple administrative district unit, the promotion of the welfare of residents and the prosperity and development of village, and whose own organization is a decision-making body and an executive body selected by the general assembly and the general assembly, and whose own activities are the non-corporate body, shall be capable of being a party.

(b)a document prepared for submission as evidence during the course of the proceeding is not admissible as evidence as a matter of course for that reason;

(a) Articles 48(b) and 328 of the Civil Procedure Act;

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1429 delivered on November 22, 1966, 67Da1503 Delivered on December 24, 1968, 70Da2421 Delivered on December 29, 1970

Malish lives lives lives

Defendant-Appellant No. 10

Busan District Court Decision 80Na335 delivered on October 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, although the plaintiff Il-myeon is composed of the residents of Dolsan-gun, Yangyang-gun, a administrative district unit, it is just that the court below ruled that the above third party has the ability to be a party under the Civil Procedure Act as an unincorporated association under Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the above third party has the power to exercise the power to exercise the power to represent the plaintiff's non-corporate association, such as the theory of litigation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to an unincorporated association or the incomplete hearing, in order to achieve this with its own purpose, which is the promotion of the welfare of residents and the prosperity and the development of the village as its own organization, which is a decision-making body, and the executive body elected by the general assembly and the general assembly, which is an executive body.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land of this case was owned jointly by the plaintiff father and it was entrusted to the deceased non-party 5, who was the father of the defendant, due to the influence of the deceased non-party 4, who was the father of the plaintiff father at the time when the land ruling was made on May 7, 1912 as the property owned by the plaintiff father and the land of this case was originally owned by the plaintiff father, and was owned by the plaintiff non-party 1. The court below is just in examining the records in relation to the above fact-finding in light of the records, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation, such as violation of the logical rules or the rule of experience, and there is no error of law as to the rules of evidence No. 13-1, No. 14-1, No. 15-1, and No. 16-1 (written confirmation) in the court below's decision that it was not admissible as evidence, and there is no error in the judgment below's reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)