The judgment of the court below is reversed due to a mistake in the value judgment on evidence and a permitted appeal.

It is a violation of the law that should reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Facilitating Litigation

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 82Na428 delivered on November 19, 1982

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment against the defendant as to the annexed land (B) in the 6-3 Hobbeon, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that determined that the above non-party 1, the father of the plaintiff, purchased from the defendant on April 6, 1961, the non-party 1, from among the non-party 1 (name 1 omitted) and the non-party 1, from among the non-party 57 and the non-party 1, who already owned the house and possessed the house at that time, the non-party 1, from among the non-party 1 (name 1 omitted) and the non-party 57 and the non-party 1, who already occupied the house at that time, at that time, at that time, at the same time, at the same time the non-party 1 purchased the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who is the father of the plaintiff at that time, at 280,000 square meters (the monetary unit at that time) and the non-party 1's right to claim ownership transfer registration, as stated in its reasoning.

However, according to the contents of No. 1, the document in the name of the deceased non-party 1, which the plaintiff recognized the authenticity of the plaintiff, 14 square meters purchased from the defendant, as the court below's approval, are clear that the above non-party 1 was not a part of the non-party 1's address of 57 square meters and 3 square meters in Yongsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) but a part of the non-party 1's address of 57 square meters and 2.6 square meters in addition to the part of the Yongsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted). Thus, the court below rejected the above non-party 1's contents of No. 1 without any reason and added them to the above contents. In other words, the non-party 1's land purchased from the defendant was only a part of the non-party 1's address of 57 square meters and the non-party 1's name of 7 square meters and it was not in violation of the rule of experience that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's evidence were occupied.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the non-party 1 included the non-party 1 in the part (Ga) of Yongsan-gu (No. 1 omitted) and the non-party 1 among the non-party 57-3 Hobbbe in the 14th grade of the site purchased from the defendant, and that the non-party 1 included the non-party 6-3 Hobbe in the part (Ga) in the part (Ga) in the non-party 57-3 Hobbe, which was not disputed by the defendant, and that the decision of the court of the first instance, which accepted the defendant's claim for the registration of ownership transfer as to that part, cannot be found to have any evidence that is recognized without any dispute between the parties

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the defendant's complaint regarding the land of the above part (B) shall be reversed, and the corresponding part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining part of the appeal shall be dismissed without any statement of the grounds of appeal, and the costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party's own

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)