The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it violates the rules of evidence or misleads the exchange as a gift against the rule of experience.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it violates the rules of evidence or misleads the exchange as a gift against the rule of experience.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 85Na239 delivered on May 22, 1986

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below acknowledged that the above real estate was owned by the deceased non-party 1 and the ownership transfer of the above real estate at 793 square meters in Jeonju-si, and was registered under the name of the plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, etc. on May 19, 1981. The real estate in this case was acquired by exchange with the above non-party 1 at about 161 square meters in Jeonju-si ( Address 2 omitted) prior to about 50 years prior to the above non-party 2's transfer of the real estate, and it was legitimate for the plaintiff to have transferred the above real estate to the non-party 1 on the ground that the plaintiff illegally completed the registration of ownership transfer as above. The court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 purchased the above real estate under the non-party 1's name on March 23, 1984, the plaintiff acquired the ownership transfer transfer of the above real estate to the non-party 1, and the non-party 2.

2. However, according to the records adopted by the court below that the above real estate was not exchanged with the above non-party 1 for the above non-party 1's survival, and that the non-party 1's above real estate was sold to the non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 1's counter-6's witness.

In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff or the above non-party 4 stated that the plaintiff or the above non-party 4 was donated the real estate of this case from the above non-party 1 at the investigation of the case subject to the above special measures, and since the above non-party 4 was the inheritor of the above non-party 1, the plaintiff merely testified that the plaintiff was donated the real estate of this case to the above non-party 1 after the lawsuit of this case, and it is obvious that the above non-party 4 testified that the plaintiff was given the gift of this case only after he was the witness of this case. The above non-party 4 testified that the plaintiff was given the gift of this case. If the plaintiff received the real estate of this case as alleged in the above, the plaintiff or the above non-party 4 did not have any assertion about the above special measures in light of the empirical rule, and the testimony of the above non-party 4 in this case or the testimony of the above non-party 4 is hard to be easily believed, and there is no evidence to prove that it conforms with the above facts.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the real estate of this case was owned by the deceased non-party 1 without being exchanged with the land of Songcheon-dong and donated it to the plaintiff, and on this premise, determined that the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case was based on the plaintiff's mistake, it is difficult to avoid criticism that it was illegal by recognizing facts contrary to the rules of evidence or against the rules of experience in the preparation of evidence and the determination of its value, and that such illegality constitutes a serious violation of laws and regulations to be recognized as significantly contrary to justice and equity unless the judgment of the court below is reversed.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)