2. The plaintiff.

As to January 6, 2012, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of public sale on January 6, 2012, and the Defendant is currently occupying and using the instant real estate without compensation. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate. As such, the Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was not obligated to return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, on the ground that

Even if the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with B on the instant real estate, such contractual relationship cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, the owner of the land.

However, the plaintiff is also a person who had occupied the real estate of this case before he acquired ownership, and received a request from B to allow the defendant to use the real estate of this case free of charge (However, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant allowed to use the real estate of this case only temporarily when he bears management expenses). In full view of the above facts of recognition, it is judged that the loan contract for use of the real estate of this case was concluded implicitly between the plaintiff and the defendant.

According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not specified, the borrower shall return the object at the time when use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed, but even if use or profit-making has not been completed in reality, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and claim the return of the object borrowed when sufficient period for use or profit-making has elapsed. Therefore, whether sufficient period for use or profit-making under Article 613(2)