(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. 30 million won and as regards it, March 2015.

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

Therefore, unless the defendant has no right to possess the apartment of this case, the defendant should deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant donated the instant apartment to the Plaintiff or received a donation from the Plaintiff for a private person.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has the right to possess the loan contract since it entered into a loan agreement with the plaintiff.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s donation or private donation is recognized, the Plaintiff cancelled or withdrawn the donation with the preparatory document dated December 16, 2015 (Article 555 of the Civil Act), and the donation not based on the document may be cancelled at any time (Article 555 of the Civil Act). Since the donation not based on the document may be withdrawn at any time (Articles 562 and 1108(1) of the Civil Act), it is deemed that the Defendant’s donation or private donation asserted by the Plaintiff’s declaration of

In addition, even if the defendant occupied and used the apartment of this case under a loan agreement for use, the contract can be terminated at any time when the period sufficient for the use and profit-making expires unless the period of the loan for use is agreed upon (Article 613(2) of the Civil Act). As long as the defendant started to use the apartment of this case from December 2, 2013, and the amount of two years and six months already passed as of the date of closing argument of this case, it is reasonable to view that the period sufficient for the use and profit-making has expired, and therefore, the contract for the loan for use of this case

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

2. Determination on the part on the claim for payment of money

A. The fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff around August 2014 that the Defendant borrowed KRW 299,000,000 from the Plaintiff to D the proceeds of selling KRW 30,000,000 from the Government-si C site from the Plaintiff to D is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, it is therefore.