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 reasons why the party member of the court of first instance shall explain this case are as follows: (a) the “95,320 won” in the second sentence from the fourth judgment below to the “96,320 won”; (b) the first sentence in the sixth part to the “2010.8.4” shall be deemed as “ September 30, 2010”; and (c) the “31. 31. 2, 201” from the last half of the seventh part to the 8th sentence shall be deemed as “ August 2, 2011”; and (d) the Defendant shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s father’s father and wife lent the Defendant’s name in purchasing I’s I’s house, but the seller was also aware of the title trust, and pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the change in the real right to real estate that was made by the registration under a title trust agreement is null and void. As such, the registration of H’s ownership in I’s house is null and void pursuant to the above legal provisions, and eventually, H did not acquire ownership in I’s house, and thus, the Defendant is not leased rental housing by fraud or other wrongful means.

B. Where a title trustee becomes one of the parties in a contract to acquire the real right to the determined real estate and the other party did not know that the title trustee was a title trust agreement, any change in the real right to real estate that was made by registration under the title trust agreement

(Article 4(2) proviso of the Real Estate Real Name Act (Article 4(2) proviso). However, in this case, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s married H is the title trustee, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of H on the I house is valid. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is with merit.