However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Register), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Register of the building management ledger) and evidence Nos. 4-1 (resident registration certificate) employed or not rejected by the court below, the building of this case was constructed on May 7, 197 and completed on October 31 of the same year, and the above non-party Nos. 4 transferred the resident registration to Jeonju-si (resident address 1 omitted) on August 31 of the same year, which is the above building location, and the defendant transferred the resident registration to the above non-party Nos. 4, who was living together with the above non-party Nos. 3. 1 of the same year at the time of living at the former domicile, and the defendant's resident registration was also moved to the domicile of the building of this case, and the defendant's resident registration was also transferred to the domicile of this case at the same time with the above defendant's resident registration. Thus, the court below's judgment was erroneous and found that the non-party Nos. 4 was living together with the above decision No. 197. 1948.7.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 3-2 (No. 3) of this case as the father of the above non-party 4, the non-party 2 was the co-defendant of the first instance court as the witness of the above non-party 4, and the non-party 3 was the witness of the above sub-party 5 as the witness of the above sub-party 5, but the non-party 5 was the witness of the above sub-party 5, but it is difficult to recognize the contents of the sub-party 2 as true because the testimony of the above witness is the witness of the above sub-party 4, although the non-party 5 was the witness of the above sub-party 4 and the non-party 5 was the witness of the above sub-party 5.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 3-1 (the certified transcript of the family register), at the time of August 6, 1979 when the above lease contract was prepared, the defendant was unmarried before and after the age of 20, and the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, who were the grandchildren, did not leave the house, and the defendant's male and female non-party 3 became the head of Australia. Under this circumstance, it is often possible to say that the defendant entered into a sentence of 15 million won with his father's money received from his deceased father.

Furthermore, the court below rejected evidence No. 5-1 and No. 2 of the plaintiff, who lent money to the non-party 8 who is the defendant's words, and when establishing a right to collateral security on the building of this case owned by the non-party 4, which is the husband, the non-party 8 and the non-party 4 prepared and submitted to the plaintiff that the non-party 4 did not lease the building of this case to the other party, and there is no obvious evidence to deem that the building of this case was falsely prepared at the time, and it cannot be easily rejected in light

Therefore, the court below rejected the above evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, and recognized the fact that the defendant moved into the building in this case by the statement of the above evidence No. 1 and the testimony of the above witnesses had affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won