1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the additional evidence submitted by this court, and it is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and it rejected each entry of evidence Nos. 13, 14, and evidence No. 15-12. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "real estate of this case" as the "house of this case" is deemed as the "house of this case." Thus, it is acceptable to

However, this Court added the following judgments as to the plaintiff's new argument.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the Deceased, may claim a legal reserve of inheritance against the Plaintiff’s share in the instant housing and the instant deposit, which is the inherited property of the Deceased.

However, it cannot be said that the legal reserve of inheritance can be claimed only for the deceased's legal heir, and the plaintiff who is only a de facto spouse cannot be seen as the legal reserve of inheritance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on the counterclaim, the Plaintiff asserts that the deceased in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff had the right to live together, provide support, and cooperate with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to possess the instant housing.

However, the duty of support, etc. is not inherited to the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot assert the right of possession of the said housing against the Defendants.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The plaintiff asserted that the counterclaim by the defendants constitutes abuse of rights, but the plaintiff's counterclaim by itself cannot be deemed to constitute abuse of rights. 3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the main claim and counterclaim by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit.