A. Where grounds for retrial fall under the grounds for retrial, but does not fall under the grounds for appeal of right

(b) Where an indication of amount is made in the contract prior to the use of won currency, the credibility of such contract;

(c)an example contrary to the rule of experience in taking different testimony of the same witness.

A. Although the determination on important matters that may affect the judgment constitutes grounds for retrial, it cannot be deemed that such grounds are included in the grounds for appeal of right under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. The Korean won description was used from June 18, 1962 under the Emergency Financial Measures Act (Act No. 1091, Jun. 16, 1962) and was used in the monetary unit at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, which was the previous contract, but if the amount is indicated in the contract, it is reasonable to deem that the contents cannot be trusted in the truth unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

(c)an example contrary to the rule of experience in taking different testimony of the same witness.

A. Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act). Articles 261 and 328(c) of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 4292Sang493 delivered on January 14, 1960

C. Decision 69Da818 delivered on July 29, 1969

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Chang-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na2 (Main Office), 3 (Counterclaim) decided July 29, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are examined.

1. As to the assertion of rights:

According to the first point and the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the defendant abbreviationd name) acquired 78 square meters in the portion of the land in the dispute in the decision of 393 in order and owned for 20 years after legitimately succeeding to the title of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter the plaintiff abbreviationd name), and accepted the defendant's claim for the ownership transfer registration of the land in the dispute in this case and rejected the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration and the claim for transfer of the land in this case.

On the other hand, the court below's argument that the acquisition by prescription for the part on the land in dispute of the defendant is suspended by comparing the reasoning of the judgment below with the records is identical to the theory of lawsuit that the court below did not make any judgment. However, the grounds for the omission of judgment cannot be the grounds for appeal under Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the cases concerning the omission of judgment are different from the specific facts of this case, and it cannot be viewed that the judgment of the court below conflicts with the above Supreme Court precedents. Further, it is like the theory that the court below's rejection of judgment as to important matters that affect the judgment is the grounds for retrial, but it cannot be viewed that the above grounds for appeal are included in the grounds for appeal under Article 11 (1) of the above Special Cases Concerning the Retrial of Legal Proceedings, since there is no ground for appeal as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the reasons for the omission of judgment, the lack of reasons, and the reasons for the omission of judgment, or the specific precedents as to this case cannot be included in the grounds for appeal.

The question is also groundless.

2. With respect to a licensed appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's claim for the above 393 square meters on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff (non-party 1; hereinafter the plaintiff 1) and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired ownership transfer registration under the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the building's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 were sold.

In light of the evidence that the plaintiff's 78 square meters of land was purchased by the deceased non-party 6, the above sales contract is a sales contract between the non-party 5 sold on April 12, 1961 and the non-party 6, and the price of the purchase is indicated in Korean won (the contract price shall be KRW 100,000 won and the balance shall be KRW 90,000 won). The Korean won indication was used from June 18, 1962 under the Emergency Financial Measures Act (Act No. 1091 of June 16, 1962) and it was used in the monetary unit at the time of the above contract, and if the price is indicated as won in the contract, it is reasonable to view that the above contents cannot be trusted in Korean currency without any special circumstance acceptable (see the above decision of the court below, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 203Da4939, Jan. 14, 1960).

Then, according to the entry of No. 2-2 (Gain Sales Contract) as cited by the court below, the contract was signed on September 2, 1958 by the seller between the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 on the condition that the land of this case is sold and purchased at the site except 1/4 of the house and 72-4 of the building site between the seller non-party 4 and the non-party 4, and a disposal document, such as the contract, may not be believed to have a reasonable counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da104 delivered on March 27, 1979). The court below excluded the part of the content that the above non-party 3 transferred only 3/4 of the 78th of the land of this case to the non-party 4 as evidence, but according to the testimony of the non-party 4, according to the court below's decision, it was recognized that the non-party 3 sold at the 78th of the building site.

However, according to the records, Non-Party 4's testimony of the second instance witness, the witness testified that the first 78 square meters of this case's land and 3 buildings of this case were sold from Non-Party 3 to Non-Party 5 on December 1959, and according to Non-Party 3's testimony of Non-Party 3, the witness of the first instance trial testified that the land and buildings of this case were purchased from Non-Party 2 for 3 years on September 2, 1958 and sold them to Non-Party 4 for 180,000,000,000,000 won, and there is no reasonable explanation as to the fact that the above witness's testimony excluded from 1/4,000 of the land in this case's holding, it cannot be rejected from the part that "except for 1/4 of this case's land" as a disposition document prepared by the above witness as a party to this case's 2-2, but the court below rejected part of the above non-party 4's testimony.

In addition, the court below testified that the defendant's deceased non-party 6 purchased the land from non-party 5, who is the witness at the time of preparation of Eul evidence No. 2-1, as evidence that the non-party 6 purchased the land from the non-party 5, and the non-party 7, who is the witness at the time of preparation of Eul evidence No. 2-1. If the court of first instance and the testimony of the court of first instance are examined in comparison with the records, the court of first instance shall purchase 3/4 of this land from the non-party 3 on Sep. 2, 1958, and the non-party 8's father shall purchase 1/4 of this land from the non-party 6 from the non-party 6 on April 12, 1961, and the non-party 5, the previous transferee, is also a witness at the time of preparation of Eul evidence No. 2-1, and it is hard to see the court below's decision that the non-party 6 witness's testimony was inconsistent with the original assertion of the defendant 1.

According to the records, other evidence except the above evidence admitted by the court below is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's deceased non-party 6 purchased the whole land of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit and accepted the defendant's claim of the counterclaim, which did not require any other ground of appeal, affected the judgment by lack of sufficient deliberation or evidence contrary to the rule of experience, which includes important matters concerning the interpretation of statutes, and it is clearly contrary to the justice and equity unless it is reversed. Therefore

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)