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 judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for any addition or dismissal below. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the decision of the first instance court was delivered, and the following shall be added thereto:

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s address indicated in the above document is not reliable since it does not coincide with the Plaintiff’s resident registration address at the time. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the address indicated in the above performance letter (YY L) appears to have been the address that the Plaintiff lived with the Plaintiff’s parent, and the Plaintiff’s resident registration address (YYM MM No. N in Yong-gu) appears to have been within the number of members where the Plaintiff’s workplace is located. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above performance letter is a document that lends the Plaintiff’s name to the buyer of the right to purchase the instant case, and it is only a document that only enters the Plaintiff’s workplace with his parent, and that the Plaintiff entered the address that had been living with his parent without entering the resident registration address, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the above performance letter was a document that was written voluntarily after the judgment of the first instance court. The Defendant’s assertion also did not have merit.

Since the deposited point of KRW 1,210,00, which was deposited in the Plaintiff’s loan interest passbook on November 7, 2008, is “O-cooperative P branch” located in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s workplace, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff deposited it on its own. It is reasonable to view that E did not properly state the source of the funds for acquiring the ownership of this case, and E acquired the ownership of this case out of its acquisition fund.