A. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale under the receipt of No. 93007 on November 17, 2014 with respect to a single-story house (hereinafter “instant house”).

B. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for use with the content that the Defendant would use and benefit from the instant housing free of charge.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant subleases part of the instant house to a third party.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, 2, the purpose of all pleadings】

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. Since the Defendant sublets the instant house to a third party without the Plaintiff’s consent, the contract for the loan of use is terminated, and the Defendant seeks to deliver the instant house to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s subleases part of the instant house to a third party, and the fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the loan for use was served on the Defendant on May 17, 2018 is apparent. As such, the instant loan for use was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the loan for use.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion (1) the Defendant: (a) concluded a sales contract for the instant house with the former owner without the capacity to express his/her intent; (b) the above sales contract is null and void, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name is null and void; and (c) the evidence of the Defendant’s submission alone is insufficient to recognize it; and there is no other evidence to

(2) Next, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant housing on behalf of the network E without authority, and the said sales contract was null and void.