A. From September 19, 1989 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff used part (i) part of 27.96 square meters in the ship connected in order to each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) without fixing a period.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

On March and October 2014, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the Defendant to deliver the instant real estate either to KRW 350,000 or to deliver the instant real estate as monthly rent for the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a claim is not determined for a loan for use, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the contract or the use and profit-making under the nature of the object is completed. However, even if the use and profit-making is not completed in reality, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and claim the return of the object borrowed when the sufficient period for use and profit-making expires. Whether the sufficient period for use and profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired or not should be determined based on whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the perspective of fairness, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the

(2) In full view of the following circumstances, such as ① the Defendant has resided in the instant real estate for at least 25 years, ② the civil litigation seeking monetary payment is pending in addition to the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, mutual trust relationship is likely to collapse. In full view of the aforementioned facts, the Defendant is deemed to have taken account of the following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of the pleadings.