In the appraisal of documentary evidence, the relationship between the appraiser and the copy of the document obtained outside the proceedings and the appraisal data; and

In appraising whether the contract for the sale and purchase of a witness forest is made up in 1939, the reason that the appraiser obtained the original document in the year 1939 by his/her special knowledge and experience outside the litigation shall not be deemed as an unlawful act by employing an appraisal using it, without just a reason for not being able to obtain the result of the appraisal, nor by employing an appraisal using it.

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others, attorneys Lee Woo-won and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na1574 delivered on August 29, 1975

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Judgment on the Grounds of Appeal

In light of the records as to the ground of appeal No. 1 of this case, the plaintiff was sworn as a witness in the previous suit of the case No. 62A568, and the land in this case was purchased from Defendant 1 to December 27, 1939, and was transferred in its name at this time, and was sold to Nonparty 2, and it was testified that the registration of transfer was completed in the previous suit of the case No. 67A515, and it was purchased from Nonparty 1 as the plaintiff himself and thereafter thereafter thereafter thereafter, it was difficult to accept the argument that the plaintiff did not have any interest in the protection of rights because it was against the principle of good faith because it was found that the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from Nonparty 1 and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the alleged facts and testimony were against the memory and memory.

The Defendants’ number of grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Reasons for Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as well as No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the said Defendants’ number. (Supplementary Grounds for Appeal by

In light of the above facts and records, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer was not made on the non-party 1's own land after the non-party 1 was divided into 7 non-party 1's forest land and the land category of the non-party 1's house after the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party

Therefore, even if the court below did not make a trial decision on this issue, it cannot be accepted as it developed the theory from the above opposite point of view.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)