Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 3, the plaintiff purchased 25-type apartment house occupancy rights from the defendant Eul on December 2010 through Eul, the plaintiff's mother, for 32,00,000 won for residential house G in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; the plaintiff paid 30,000,000 won to the defendant Eul on December 29, 201; 15,00,000 won on January 20, 201; 30,000,000 won on February 22, 201; 5,000 won on March 4, 201; 3,000,000 won for the above apartment house occupancy rights to the plaintiff on January 20, 201; 3,000,000 won for each of the above apartment house occupancy rights to the plaintiff on the apartment house recruitment policy.

Judgment

In light of the purpose of the above contract, the above phrase states that "the right to occupy the above goods has been revoked," and the above phrase should be interpreted as referring to the case where the plaintiff is unable to occupy the 25-type rental house through the above farmer, i.e., where the purpose of the above contract for occupancy right can not be realized.

However, the plaintiff purchased the above farmer's right from the defendant B, but the plaintiff.