1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s daughters C are in a de facto marital relationship from around 2000 to October 2009.

B. As to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff was completed on the ground of the sale on November 6, 2001, as the receipt No. 206258 of the Incheon District Court’s North Incheon District Court’s receipt on December 4, 2001, and the defendant is residing in the apartment of this case from January 2, 2002.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant requested the Defendant to deliver the instant apartment on or around April 2012 in order to dispose of the instant apartment even after the de facto marital relationship with C was terminated, while allowing the Defendant to use the instant apartment without compensation. However, the Defendant rejected this.

Accordingly, on September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating the intent to terminate the loan agreement for use of the instant apartment, and the said content-certified mail was served on the Defendant on the 20th of the same month, and thus, the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant apartment was terminated on September 20, 2012.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent after the termination date.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant apartment is a real estate owned by C in a title trust to the Plaintiff, which purchased his money on December 4, 2001, and was de facto in a de facto marital relationship, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjustifiable. 2) Even if the instant apartment is not owned C, the Plaintiff agreed to resolve the de facto marital relationship with C and allow the Defendant to continue to reside in the instant apartment until the Defendant died, and the registration of ownership transfer is to be effected upon the death of the Defendant.