Where the appellate court revokes the judgment of the court of first instance due to the error in the procedure of the judgment, it may render a self-determination without returning it.

Where the appellate court revokes the judgment of the court of first instance due to the error in the procedure of the judgment, it may render a self-determination without returning it.

Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 70Na368 delivered on July 13, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The first instance court's revocation of the first instance judgment does not necessarily require the case to be remanded to the first instance court. Thus, the first instance court's revocation of the first instance judgment, but the second instance court's revocation of the first instance judgment, and it cannot be deemed that the second instance court's revocation of the first instance judgment, but directly rendered a new judgment without remanding it, in this case. Thus, the first instance court's revocation of the first instance court's first instance judgment is erroneous, so the first instance court's revocation of the first instance court's first instance judgment is to remand the

No. 2.6. According to the records, the plaintiff, as the main claim of this case, filed a claim with the plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant, and again the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 filed a claim with the defendant for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant, on the ground that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate of this case, the plaintiff on the ground that he purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 1. However, there is a difference between whether the defendant directly acquired the real estate of this case which the defendant bears the registration obligation or whether the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case through the non-party 1, and therefore, it cannot be said that the main claim of this case and the facts of the preliminary claim are changed on the premise that the preliminary claim of this case is unlawful, without any errors in the misapprehension of legal principles.

According to the records of the third point point, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant was the purchase from the defendant who sold the real estate of this case on October 24, 1956 where the non-party 2 was alive. Thus, the court below did not err in finding the fact that the non-party 1 purchased the forest of this case from the defendant who is the representative of non-party 2 on October 24, 1956 at the time of the purchase of 200,000 currency at the time of the purchase of the forest of this case from the defendant who is the representative of non-party 2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant does not mean that

According to the records, the plaintiff's second pleading of the court below (2. 10:00 on February 9, 1971) stated that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, and filed a lawsuit for the registration of transfer of this case by subrogation of the non-party 1. If the plaintiff examines each evidence of the adoption of the court below, which is the plaintiff's proof, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff can claim for the registration of transfer of the real estate of this case by subrogation of the non-party. Thus, the court below's judgment that the plaintiff claims for the registration of transfer of ownership of this case

No. 5. Although the copy of No. 1-1 of the No. 1-1 of the No. 1 of the lawsuit did not state the part that was deleted from the name and address of the delegated person unlike the original, the court below did not have adopted it as evidence to determine the judicial clerk, and it is not sufficient to conclude that the court below did not adopt it as evidence to establish the fact that it was proved by the above copy without using the original. The court below is nothing more than that of this, and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the non-party 1 purchased the forest land owned by the non-party 2, who is the fleet, from the defendant. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there was an error in the evidence evidence of the court below which adopted No. 1-1 of the above No. 1-1 as one of the comprehensive evidence, and evidence No. 6 and No. 7 No. 8 of the evidence pointing this issue was not adopted by the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the court below's determination of facts based on the evidence adopted by the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The Korean Supreme Court Judge Han-won(Presiding Judge)