A. Defendant B shall deliver 51.39 square meters of one story among the buildings listed in the attached list, and 4,589,437 won and this shall be applicable.

A. On May 30, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and around that time, the Defendant B had the Defendant B reside without compensation on the 1st floor of 51.39 square meters of the instant building, and the Defendant B resides on the said 1st floor as of the closing date of the pleadings in this case.

B. On May 5, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C on the size of 41.64 square meters on the second floor among the instant buildings with Defendant C, with a view to KRW 250,000 per month, and for a period of ten months, and the said lease agreement has been renewed thereafter. At the end, Defendant C occupies the said second floor.

C. On May 20, 2008, the Plaintiff subrogated the total amount of KRW 4,589,437 of the principal and interest that Defendant B received from the Confidential Credit Union as a guarantor of the above Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the claim part against Defendant B, it should be deemed that the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, which did not set the period as to the first floor of the instant building.

However, according to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not determined, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed. However, even if the 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 of the loan when the sufficient period for use or profit-making has elapsed. Thus, whether the sufficient period for use or profit-making has expired or not shall be determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the perspective of fairness

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 24 delivered on July 24, 2001