There is a burden of proof on the part of the claimant's assertion that the person is under the same name.

The fact that the name is the same person has the burden of proving it.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court Decision 70Na74 delivered on February 5, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

However, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, who owned the real estate of this case, have the burden of proof against the defendant claiming that the name is the same, and cannot be viewed as having the burden of proof against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the argument that the court below erred in the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's defense or in the burden of proof cannot be adopted on the premise of the opposing opinion.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to the records, the original judgment adopted the testimony of the non-party 2 and the testimony of the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 of the witness, and the possession of the real estate in this case by the defendant 1 is recognized as the possession of the real estate in this case rather than the possession with intention to own it, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed the violation of the rules of evidence or the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho