A. The probative value in the part of the civil judgment which became final and conclusive as facts without dispute

The civil judgment that the non-party (A) made a title trust to the non-party (B) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the non-party (A), and that the termination of the title trust is no dispute between the property inheritors of the (A) and (B) who are the parties to the case, and the property inheritors of the above (B) have no credibility to acknowledge that the facts established in the judgment, i.e., the fact that the above (A) made a title trust to the non-party (A) and the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party (A) under a title trust to the non-party (B), is objectively true, regardless of the fact that

Articles 139 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu565 delivered on September 15, 1983

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 was a public official of the above non-party 1, and the above land was registered for the transfer of ownership under a title trust with the deceased non-party 3, who had difficulty in completing the registration of ownership because it was farmland and it was difficult to complete the registration of ownership because it was farmland and it was a public official of the above non-party 1 on December 1, 1974.

In light of the records, the evidence cited by the court below in recognizing the facts in its judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 3 (Certified Copy) is a certified copy of the register of the above land at the original time, and its contents are insufficient to recognize the title trust facts at the original time. However, only the non-party 1 of the witness of the court below made a statement that corresponds to the facts at the original time.

However, the above non-party 1 was the principal who held the title trust of the plaintiff's accommodation and the above land to the above non-party 3, and his statement is evident by the entries in Gap's No. 6-3 (register of register). In other words, the above non-party 3 purchased from the non-party 2 on June 1, 1974 the 826 square meters prior to the above (name 2 omitted) and purchased from the non-party 2 on June 4, 1974, and is in violation of the facts that registered the ownership transfer in his name on June 4 of the same year. Thus, if the court below intends to use it as materials to recognize the facts in its judgment after making his statement, it should have deliberated on the grounds that the one who registered the ownership transfer in the above non-party 3's name and the one who registered the title trust with the former

The court below's decision that recognized the above facts alone is erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is a ground to point this out.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following purport: (b) evidence Nos. 6-7 through 10 (each certified transcript of register); (c) evidence Nos. 9-1 (judgments); and (d) Non-party 4’s testimony and pleading of Non-party 5, the non-party 5, who newly constructed a new title trust on the ground of Non-party 1’s death on May 18, 1963; (b) obtained farmland distribution and completed the registration of ownership transfer; and (c) purchased from Non-party 6 the above non-party 3 on August 18, 1963, the registration of ownership transfer was completed; and (d) Non-party 5, who acquired the title trust from Non-party 3 on April 197 to October 10, 197; and (d) obtained the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Non-party 1, the title of the heir; and (d) obtained the registration of ownership transfer from Non-party 181.

In light of the records, the court below's judgment No. 9-1 (the above non-party 5's judgment) which cited the above facts in Gap's holding that the non-party 1 did not have any dispute between the non-party 5's above non-party 1 and the above non-party 3's property under the above non-party 5's name and the non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 5's non-party 9's non-party 9's property.

(3) Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)