If the householder and his family together live, the possessor of the house;

If the head of a household or the head of a household occupies a house with his family, only the head of the household can be an independent occupant, and the family does not belong to an assistant in possession of the head of the household who does not maintain his livelihood independently.

Article 195 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 4292 civilis647 decided Jul. 28, 1960 (Law No. 195(2)371 of the Civil Act, 6020 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (62Na279)

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court public prosecution division.

The original judgment is reversed, and a new trial is sought.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal are as stated in the grounds of appeal.

The first ground is health. According to the original judgment, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the defendant is the defendant, but the actual possessor of the house is the defendant, and the case name also accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the other party to the claim is the defendant, since the defendant is the head of the house or the actual possessor of the house, and the defendant does not maintain his own livelihood regardless of the form of Australia, it cannot be found that there was any error in the measure that the court below concluded that only one of the family members subordinate to the defendant is not the only one of the family members of the defendant, since the defendant is merely the head of the house or the actual possessor of the house of this case, and the defendant raises his children due to his behavior, etc.

In addition, in cases where the householder or the householder occupies a house with his/her family members, only the householder becomes an independent occupant, who does not maintain his/her livelihood independently, and thus, the court below recognized the defendant as the other party to the same purport and accepted the plaintiff's request for the name order. However, as stated in the theory of lawsuit, the defendant and his/her children jointly succeeded to the right of possession as to the house of the deceased (the above deceased and his/her children were succeeded to possession of the house by inheritance of the right of lease or loan of use between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, on the ground that the contract for the lease or loan of use of the house was concluded, the court below did not accept the request of the defendant for the right of possession as to the house of the deceased's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3.

The following reasons are examined. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff purchased the house of this case from the non-party 1 on April 6, 1961 in the evidence Nos. 4-2 (register of register) without dispute in the establishment of the court below, since it presumed that the plaintiff purchased the house of this case from the non-party 1 before the husband of the defendant on April 6, 1961, and there is no other evidence as well as the defendant's answer that actively denied the purchase and sale facts and the defendant's testimony consistent with the defendant's answer and the defendant's questioning, so the defendant's answer is groundless. However, according to the records, the plaintiff purchased the house of this case in cash of 50,000 won due to the cause of the claim and paid 20,000 won, and the remaining 30,000 won was settled by taking over the debt of the same amount equivalent to the above amount that the non-party 1 was against the non-party agricultural bank, and the defendant submitted evidence No. 1.

However, as in the theory of lawsuit, the above evidence Nos. 1, as well as the plaintiff's establishment time, according to its contents, the defendant's husband's 19,00 won was 19,00 won for the non-party bank, and the plaintiff clearly stated that he did not take over the deceased's obligations. Thus, this is consistent with the defendant's answer and it is against the presumption of the court below. Thus, the above judgment of the court below should be judged as evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, which are the copy of the register, although the above evidence Nos. 1 and 1 should be judged, it is presumed that the above evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, which are the copy of the register, had been purchased by the non-party bank, and it is contrary to the above evidence Nos. 1, and the statement that the defendant's 1 had no other evidence corresponding to the defendant's answer without any words, constitutes a case where the judgment of evidence was rejected, and it also affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the theory of the lawsuit on this point is reasonable, so the judgment on the remainder of the grounds of appeal No. 2 is omitted, and the original judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the case is decided as per Disposition in order to have the original court re-examine the case.

Judges Kim Kim-gn (Presiding Judge)