소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for an additional determination as to the argument that the defendant added or emphasized in the trial as set forth in the following paragraph (2), and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's parent is a member of the household since the plaintiff was living and living in the apartment of this case with his parent. The plaintiff's parent owned the house during the period of living in the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff's parent is not a non-family person who resided in the relevant rental house from the date of occupancy to the date of conversion for sale in lots. The plaintiff argues that
The defendant's assertion is premised on the fact that the plaintiff living together with the plaintiff's parent, but in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap's evidence and evidence Nos. 9, 13, 18, 19, 22 through 25, Eul's evidence Nos. 10, 11 through 14, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff resided with the plaintiff's parent in the apartment of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this.
① The Plaintiff became the householder through the separation of households on July 12, 2012, and was an adult at the age of 20 years and 10 months.
In addition, the point of time is two years before moving into the apartment of this case, and it is before entering into a lease contract with respect to the apartment of this case.
② The frequency of the Plaintiff’s parent vehicles’ entry into the instant apartment complex has not been recorded in a quarterly, and the number of times has reached 125 times a quarter. In many cases, it is difficult to deem that the entry into the instant apartment complex is a regular method, and it is difficult to deem that the frequency of the entry into the instant apartment except for a quarter has frequently been residing in the instant apartment.
The parent of the plaintiff is the parent of the plaintiff on 2018.