2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

A. The network D and network E (the wife of the network D) were children F and G, etc. The Plaintiff is the children of G, Defendant B is the father of Defendant B, and Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B.

B. On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”).

C. The Defendants are residing in the instant housing from November 19, 2015 to the present date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to temporarily use the instant housing for medical treatment. The Plaintiff had the Defendants use the instant housing without compensation in consideration of the relationship with the Defendants.

In other words, the Plaintiff temporarily allowed the Defendants to use the instant house for the purpose of medical care until the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff, which constitutes a loan for use without an agreement at the time of return.

However, by raising an issue as to the ownership relationship of the instant housing site, the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to maintain the said loan agreement was broken, and the Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the said loan agreement through the certification of the content on August 3, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant housing to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The Defendants’ assertion (1) agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that they reside in the above housing for five years after repairing the instant housing. As such, the period of the loan for use of the instant housing is five years.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not agree on the time of return of the instant house, the use and profit-making of the Defendants regarding the instant house was not terminated, and the Defendants paid KRW 9.8 million to the Plaintiff.