Cases where there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning a case where the facts alleged by the counter party are not clearly asserted;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the title trust was obtained from the owner Gap is erroneous in the misapprehension of law by holding that the court below did not have any evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the above owner about the fact that the title trust was made with respect to the building site in question, although the defendant did not clearly deny or prove that it was in the form of the records.

B. Where the plaintiffs purchased another land from the owner Gap to the plaintiffs' future registration of ownership transfer, and later, if the owner Gap sold the land in different ways, the plaintiffs agreed to transfer the ownership directly to the purchaser and if they were registered in the plaintiffs' name, the plaintiffs should be deemed to have entrusted the plaintiffs with the ownership of the land in this case in light of our sound common sense.

Article 139(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 65Na433 delivered on April 13, 1966

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the plaintiffs' agent Kim Jong-chul's grounds of appeal.

As to the site of this case, the plaintiffs did not have a real ownership, but they received a title trust from the deceased non-party who was the owner, and therefore, the registration of acquisition of the plaintiffs' rights on the register is required to be lawful, and therefore, in this case, the plaintiffs' claim for the implementation of the procedure such as cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant in this case is asserted by the fact-finding court that they should not be the trustee of ownership of this case (Article 108 and Chapter 225 of the record of the 8th oral argument in the first instance trial, the record of the second oral argument in the second instance, and Chapter 25 of the record of the second oral argument in the second instance

Rather, according to the statement in the written reply written by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs did not purchase this site from the above Nonparty, and when they purchased another land from the Nonparty, the Plaintiffs were to purchase ownership transfer registration in the future of the Plaintiffs, and the land that was deemed to have been obtained by mistake was in excess of the name on the register. The Nonparty and the Plaintiffs knew of such fact and subsequently, if the Nonparty were to purchase this site on different occasions, the Plaintiffs agreed to transfer their ownership directly to the buyer, and the registration was made in the name of the Plaintiffs.

In light of our sound common sense, unless there are other special circumstances, the above non-party shall be deemed to have entrusted the ownership of the land to the plaintiffs, barring any special circumstances. Nevertheless, the court below held that "it shall be deemed that the registration made in the name of the plaintiff, etc. was temporarily made in the name of the plaintiff, etc. in order to avoid a confusion that the registration of cancellation of the registration was made in the name of the plaintiff, etc. was made in the name of the plaintiff, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff, etc. and the non-party on the fact that the title trust was made in the name of the building site." The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the case where the parties did not clearly dispute the facts alleged in the counter-party in the pleading, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the legal act unless otherwise alleged.

Since the issue is well-grounded in this point, the decision on the issue of other appeals can only be raised.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.