1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2...

Basic Facts

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the above facts, according to the judgment on the grounds of the claim as to the main claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

This Court's decision on the conclusion of a free lease contract and the implied renewal defense is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 2-b of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's request for the issuance of the apartment of this case constitutes an abuse of rights as an act against humanity.

The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged when Gap evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, 3, 4, 9, evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, 17, 18-1, 2, 21, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7, 9, 15, 16-1 through 4, 27-1, 28, 38, and 38 are added to the purport of the whole pleadings:

Plaintiff

During 15 years of living together between both the couple and the Defendants, while the Plaintiff couple supported the Defendants, they have taken care of the said woman on behalf of the Plaintiff couple who is subject to double punishment, and had the Plaintiff couple mitigated the burden of domestic and childcare, and had the Plaintiff couple take care of the said woman, so that the Plaintiff couple may be subject to double punishment.

Plaintiff

Husband and wife are under duty to support the Defendants, but the Defendants did not have a duty to take responsibility for the family affairs and childcare of the Plaintiff husband and wife, but they were also married to the Plaintiff with love and contribution to the Plaintiff husband and wife.

As asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife may not deny the fact that the Plaintiff’s husband and wife received a big help from the Defendants, considering that the Defendants, who are their parents, were ambiguous and scarcityd.

The above period of living together.