Cases in violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing

It is true that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing due to the lack of reasons.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others

13 years old (Attorney Kim Han-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1264, 1265 Decided September 24, 1968

The intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

The litigation costs incurred by the intervenor's appeal shall be borne by the intervenor.

The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Plaintiff is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment on the plaintiff's ground of appeal. According to the judgment of the court of first instance, although the plaintiff's attorney owned the plaintiff's forest land, the plaintiff's attorney filed for each registration as stated in the purport of the claim without the plaintiff's title. The registration of the ground of appeal is invalid. However, according to the evidence No. 4, the plaintiff's purchase of the forest land of August 9, 1963 from non-party 1 can be acknowledged. However, even if the real estate was originally owned by the non-party 1, the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership unless it is registered under the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff's transfer of ownership was not made under the plaintiff's name, and there is no other evidence to prove that the forest land was owned by the plaintiff or that the above registration under the defendant's name was invalid. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each of the above grounds of appeal under the premise that each of the above registration under the defendant's name is invalid based on the ownership of the defendant, etc.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Registration No. 3) without dispute between the parties, it can be seen that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the plaintiff for the reason of sale on October 10, 1943. After that, there is no proof that the ownership of the forest land was transferred from the plaintiff to the above defendants through non-resident 2, etc. or solitary persons, and according to the purport of oral argument of the parties, the preservation registration in the future of the defendants can be viewed as the restoration registration due to the destruction of the register. Thus, barring special circumstances, the preservation registration in the name of non-resident 2 and non-party 3 as of the forest land cannot be viewed as the cause of invalidation registration. Thus, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the ownership registration in the name of the plaintiff No. 14 as to the real estate under the name of the plaintiff No. 96, May 22, 1965.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by an independent party intervenor's agent

Although the intervenor entrusted the forest land in the name of the non-resident non-resident non-party 2 and non-party 3 in the name of the non-party 3, and then terminated the trust on August 16, 1965, the facts that the plaintiff did not recover the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest land in the name of the intervenor are the intervenor. If so, in the relation to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim for participation seeking confirmation of ownership of the forest land in the name of the original defendant against the original defendant is obviously groundless, and therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's application for participation on the ground that the original judgment is unlawful, is justified, and the arguments

3. Accordingly, the intervenor's appeal is without merit. The costs of the lawsuit incurred by the intervenor's appeal are assessed against the losing intervenor, and the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff is reversed due to the plaintiff's appeal, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kimchi-bak (Presiding Justice)