1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that had been exchanged in this court.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of “1. Recognition” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Before May 2009" in the 19th part of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be applied "Before February 2009".

Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "No. 18" of the 12th written evidence shall be changed to "No. 18,21".

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had the Defendant reside in the instant apartment, his own possession, on the condition that the Defendant repaid the interest of the instant loan on behalf of the Defendant.

This is a loan for use or a lease without a term of contract. Therefore, the termination becomes effective at the lapse of six months after the notice of termination. However, as long as the plaintiff requested the defendant to deliver the apartment of this case on September 1, 2016 and six months thereafter, the above loan for use or the lease contract was lawfully terminated.

Therefore, since the defendant occupies the apartment of this case without a legitimate title, it should be handed over to the plaintiff who is the owner.

B. The facts that the defendant occupied the apartment of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, and has been residing until now are as seen above. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and all pleadings, the plaintiff sent to the defendant on September 1, 2016 a certificate of content that he/she seeks to deliver to the defendant as the owner of the apartment of this case and served the defendant around that time. Thus, the defendant is obliged to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant, around August 20, 2006, donated the apartment of this case to the plaintiff on the condition that the defendant bears the plaintiff's selling price, loan and expenses on behalf of the plaintiff, but the transfer registration of ownership transfer shall be made with the charge to be transferred after the expiration of the resale restriction period.