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

3.Paragraph 1.

The plaintiff and the defendant were married on September 14, 200 and divorced on June 16, 2008.

B. On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) real estate in attached Form C (hereinafter “instant loan”) with a deposit of KRW 65,00,000, and the period from May 16, 2014 to May 15, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. From May 16, 2014, the defendant is residing in the loan of this case with the consent of the plaintiff.

2. According to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan for use without setting the duration of the instant loan (the Defendant also recognized that the instant loan was a loan for use in the preparatory document dated August 20, 2015). Since the instant lease agreement was terminated on May 15, 2016, the period sufficient for the Defendant’s use and profit-making of the instant loan has expired, the Plaintiff may terminate the loan for use at any time after May 15, 2016.

(Article 613(2) of the Civil Act. Since the Plaintiff continues to seek the delivery of the instant loan to the Defendant in the instant lawsuit, it is deemed that the loan agreement between the original Defendant on the instant loan was lawfully terminated.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the loan of this case to the plaintiff upon termination of the contract.

3. The Defendant’s assertion against the Defendant was found to have purchased and resided in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 118 dong 205 (hereinafter “D apartment”), but the apartment is subject to division of property. As such, the Defendant’s claim for division of property against the instant apartment is also a claim for division of property against the Plaintiff, who paid the lease deposit with the selling price of the instant apartment.