The rule of experience in recognizing the assertion that all family members have promised to repay real estate on behalf of them while immigration;

In a case where it is deemed that one of the co-owners of the forest land was difficult to easily return to his/her former family members because he/she had moved to full-time, barring any special circumstance, it is difficult to recognize the fact that he/she borrowed money on the premise that he/she would repay his/her forest land within a certain period (five years), and made a promise for payment in kind in relation to his/her own forest land or forest land.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Lee Jae-won et al., Counsel for the defendant

Defendant Ordo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 88Na7031 delivered on June 14, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the forest land of this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1, this part of this case was transferred to the non-party 1's family members, including the plaintiff, in Japan around 1936, and this part of this case's shares was transferred to the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6'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 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's share.

However, as recognized by the court below, the defendant's transfer registration under the above-mentioned or the plaintiff's name among the forest land in this case was embezzled and became final and conclusive as the defendant was not dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction. Of the forest land in this case, the plaintiff transferred to the plaintiff's future shares 1/2 of the forest land stated in the annexed list of the court below's judgment, and made and delivered a blank sale certificate (No. 10 certificate) and a written consent (No. 11 certificate) to the defendant's name, barring any special circumstance, it can be deemed that such transfer registration was made under the premise that there was no cause for the registration of shares in the defendant's name and returned to the original owner, and it was hard to accept the plaintiff's transfer registration under the above 19-year ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1 (the non-party 16-year ownership transfer registration under the non-party 1's name). If the defendant sold the forest land in this case for a long time under the above circumstances, it is hard to accept the plaintiff 16-year ownership transfer registration under the non-party 19.

However, the court below's decision that the registration of the defendant's name is valid only by the evidence cited by the court without any other special circumstances, and that rejection of opposing evidence is against the rules of evidence, not incomplete and incomplete. This affected the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to the extent that it affected the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)