The case where it is difficult to view it as a prior confession.

If the plaintiff alleged that the real estate was owned by Japan, and that the real estate was sold to the defendant on March 25, 1945, but it was not registered as of August 9, 1945, and that it was owned by the country, and that the defendant completed a false preservation registration before August 15, 194, which was owned by the defendant, from August 25, 194 to August 9, 194, and that the defendant sought confirmation of the plaintiff's ownership and cancellation of the above registration, it is difficult to view that the defendant was a prior confession of the purchase of the real estate from Japan on March 25, 1945. However, even if the defendant purchased the real estate from Japan on the above date, it is reasonable to deem that it should be viewed as property devolving upon ownership since it was not registered as of August 9, 1945.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea

Defendant

Seoul citizens' area, Seoul High Court Seoul High Court Decision 201

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the above facts, the court below held that there was no dispute between the two parties as stated in Gap's above-mentioned certificate No. 1 and the above-mentioned certificate No. 2 (the above-mentioned certificate No. 4) that the defendant purchased the above certificate No. 1 and the above-mentioned certificate No. 2 (the above-mentioned certificate No. 1) because it was hard for the defendant to find that the above-mentioned certificate No. 38 (the above certificate No. 2) had no effect on the date of sale and the above-mentioned certificate No. 8) because the defendant purchased the above real estate from Japan and the above-mentioned certificate No. 8 (the above certificate No. 2) without any dispute over the validity of cancellation of the confession No. 1 and the above-mentioned certificate No. 2 (the above-mentioned certificate No. 7). According to the above facts, the court below's determination that the defendant had no effect on the cancellation of the above confession No. 1 and the above-mentioned certificate No. 2 (the above-mentioned certificate No. 7).

However, considering the records, it is difficult to find that the above real estate was sold to the defendant on March 25, 1945, because the first instance court's 5 statement was the 4th anniversary of the fact that the above real estate was sold to the defendant, which was the first instance court's 4th trial's original statement, and it was hard to find that the defendant's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 4th court's 5th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 4th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 4th court's 5th court's 9th court's 9th court's 9th court's 19th court's 6th court's 19th court's 5th court's 9th court's 19th court's 6th court's 6th court's 19th court's 2 court's 19th court's 14th court's misunderstanding.

Therefore, the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu