(a) Cases which cannot be considered as revocation of confession;

B. Even if the forest owner was under the circumstance of the forest land in trust with the forest land other than the "A" and 7 others, the trust relationship between the forest owner and the "A" is not terminated, so the forest land situation in the name of "A" is formed based on the cause of the trust.

A. On the plaintiff's plaintiff's ground that the above forest land was owned by Gap, the court below stated that the above clan was entrusted to the non-party Gap et al. and was under the name of the plaintiff's own name, and that Gap was under the circumstances of Gap's own name. Since Gap violated the purpose of the above trust and was under the circumstances of Gap's own name, it cannot be deemed that the above 7 representative was revoked the confession of the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's ground that the above clan was under the name of the plaintiff's own name.

B. The fact that the forest owner (Jinant) entrusted the forest to the non-party 7 (Plaintiff Help) is not extinguished even if the forest owner and the forest owner were subjected to the circumstances in their own name in violation of this provision, and thus, the forest land situation in Gap’s name is formed based on the ground of trust.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Government support of the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2779 delivered on February 11, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

However, on October 8, 1917, at the time of the investigation, Nonparty 1, the owner of the instant forest, made a trust to the Plaintiff, Nonparty 2, and 7, who was the owner of the instant forest, and received the assessment of the instant forest under his own name in violation of the purpose of the trust, and thereafter, Nonparty 2 changed the situation of the instant forest under one’s own name in violation of the purport of the trust, and subsequently, Nonparty 2 stated that he was able to manage the instant forest under one’s own name in violation of the above purport of the trust. Accordingly, even if Nonparty 2 stated that he was able to manage the instant forest under one’s own name by adding five other than the above eight representatives and 12 representative, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff asserted that the instant forest belongs to the deceased Nonparty 2, and that Nonparty 2 could not be deemed to have obtained the ownership of the instant forest under one’s own name in violation of the legal principles on the revocation of the confession and that Nonparty 2 could not be deemed to have obtained the ownership of the instant forest under one’s own name.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, if the evidence adopted by the original judgment is reviewed by comparison with the records, the forest of this case shall be comprehensive, and the ownership preservation of the defendant's name shall not be deemed to have been made on the basis of the trust of a clan, and it shall not be deemed that the ownership preservation of the defendant's name was made on the basis of the trust of a clan, and it shall not be deemed that the original judgment has violated the rules of evidence, the reasons therefor, or the reasons therefor, and there shall be no errors in the original judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho