In the case of denying objective testimony or evidence with strong credibility without a reasonable explanation, and in the case of violation of the rules of evidence

The testimony of the witness, consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff purchased his own money and made a title trust only in the name of the non-party deceased in the name of the non-party deceased, is logical and reasonable, and the non-party's testimony or experience was made from the objective third party. In addition, the rejection of the contract prepared by the non-party deceased while leasing the above real estate to the non-party deceased at the time of his survival, indicating "the plaintiff-party deceased" as the lessor in the contract prepared by the non-party deceased as the lessor, and thus, it is an important evidence that the owner was aware

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na743 delivered on October 5, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased this real estate at the original time with his money on September 11, 1974 and held title trust only under the name of the deceased non-party 1 in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, as to the plaintiff's assertion that part of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 9 in the criminal record verification of the first instance court's testimony No. 2, non-party 4, and non-party 5 in the first instance court's testimony No. 1, 2, and evidence No. 6, 9, 14, evidence No. 18, evidence No. 18-1 through 3, 19, 21, 20, evidence No. 23-1, 22, 23-2, 24-2, 25, and evidence No. 16, 15-1, 17, and 17-2.

2. In light of the records, the defendants asserted that at this case's oral argument, the deceased non-party 1 purchased seven copies of the right to move into the Si-young apartment that was issued to the non-exclusive building removal residents of Seodaemun-gu Seoul around 1974, and that the real estate was purchased from the proceeds of resale on September 11, 1974. The non-party 6 of the first instance court witness who was adopted by the court below as comparison evidence was testified to the same effect as the non-party 6 of the non-party 25 of the non-party 25 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 1. The non-party 1 and 2 violated the fact that the non-party 1 were removed on July 8, 1976, and the non-party 1 and 2 stated the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's testimony and the plaintiff 2's testimony were not objectively.

The court below held that the plaintiff's assertion cannot be acknowledged on the ground that the above evidence No. 20 corresponds to the contents of No. 20 of the above evidence No. 20 on the ground that there is no credibility or no direct relation to the evidence No. 20 without any reasonable explanation, and that all of the testimonys of witnesses who correspond to the contents of No. 20 of the above evidence No. 1 cannot be trusted.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)