(a) The probative value in civil procedure of facts recognized in the final and conclusive criminal judgment;

(b) An individual constructs a building with construction expenses and then provides it as a temple building, but ownership of the building where it has been constructed with the intention of holding it by himself; and

A. Even if a civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that the criminal trial was convicted of the same facts is also a flexible evidence in a civil trial. Therefore, the facts against this cannot be recognized unless there are special circumstances.

B. In a case where a building which forms the substance of an inspection was constructed as a new building for the construction of the inspection, the ownership of the building is built at the same time, but the inspection is original acquisition at the same time, but the building cost is not provided by an individual to the inspection, but the ownership of the building is reverted to the constructing individual if the building was constructed with the intention of holding it.

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 32 and 187 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da425 delivered on May 24, 1971 (No. 1981, 13684) 80Nu13 delivered on January 27, 1981 (Gong1981, 13684) (Gong1988, 512), Supreme Court Decision 88Da6549 delivered on February 27, 1990

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 1 other Defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1337, 1338 (Counterclaim) decided July 6, 198

The part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) attorney are examined.

1. As to the land indicated in the attached list of the lower judgment:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below asserted that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 1 after completing the registration of ownership transfer, and then cancelled the title trust, and that the non-party 1 entered into a sales contract to purchase the land from the non-party 2, the original owner of which was the non-party 1 on September 1980, but thereafter, the defendant 1 and the plaintiff asked the plaintiff to find the land to sell the above land to the non-party 1 and sell it to the non-party 50 won. The court below accepted the purchase price of the land of this case on September 26, 1980, and decided that the plaintiff 200 won was not the remainder of the sale price of the above land, but the plaintiff 200 won was the non-party 2's new sale price of the land, and thus, the plaintiff was not the plaintiff's new sale price of the above 300 won.

(2) However, in a case where the Plaintiff, as a buyer, purchased the instant land with a seller and paid to the seller the purchase price of KRW 23,500,000, which is most of the purchase price of KRW 23,000,000, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 500,000 to the seller, even though Defendant 1 did so, barring special circumstances such as that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to become a joint buyer, the above Defendant’s partial payment of the purchase price is not merely a substitute for the buyer. Thus, inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of ownership transfer was completed after the purchase of the instant land, the lower court should have deliberated and determined whether the purchaser of the instant land is the Plaintiff and whether there was an agreement on title trust.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, but determined that the Plaintiff did not title trust the instant land to the Defendant on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant 1 paid KRW 23,000,000 out of the purchase price 23,50,000, and paid KRW 500,000,000 to Defendant 1. In this regard, the court below did not err in the incomplete hearing and in the incomplete reasoning.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that he purchased the land in this case under the name of the defendant 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the above 1's name, but the defendant 1 purchased the land in this case with the amount of KRW 50,000,00 which is different from this money for the defendant 2. Thus, the issue in this case is whether the purchaser of the land in this case is the plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff was entrusted to the defendant 1. Thus, the court below found that the plaintiff was not guilty of the above 1's non-indicted 42's non-indicted 49's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 7's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 30's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 30's non-indicted

2. As to buildings listed in Schedule 2 and 3 of the lower judgment:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, each of the above buildings owned by the plaintiff 1 and the above building owned by the defendant 2 was no evidence to acknowledge that the building of this case was owned by the plaintiff 1 and the above building was owned by the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 2 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 2 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 2 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case was constructed by the plaintiff 1 and the building of this case for the building of this case for 0th of September 26, 1981.

(2) In a case where a building which forms the substance of a temple was constructed as a new building for the construction of a temple, it is reasonable to view that the ownership of the building was built and that the inspection was original acquisition at the same time. However, not for an individual to contribute to the inspection, but for an individual to construct the building by bearing construction costs on his own, and provide it as a temple building, but the ownership of the building is deemed to belong to the individual who constructed it, and even in such a case, the inspection is not deemed to have originally acquired its ownership.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff paid 17,00,000 won for the construction of the building of this case No. 2 and 23,000,000 won for the construction of the building of this case No. 2 to Defendant 1, who is the chief inspector of the building of this case, who is Defendant 2, for the construction of the building of this case, and asked Defendant 1, who is the chief inspector of the building of this case, to pay for the registration of preservation of ownership. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff merely contributed to Defendant 2's construction cost of each building of this case, not to contribute to the construction cost of the building of this case to Defendant 2, but to the construction cost of the building of this case, after

Nevertheless, without examining all of the above points, the court below determined that ownership of each of the buildings of this case was originally acquired by Defendant 2’s temple without examining all of the above points, and that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reversion of ownership of the temple building and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the part concerning the main lawsuit and counterclaim is also illegal.

3. Ultimately, since the above judgment of the court below constitutes the ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below shall be reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)