Attached Form

Among the written buildings, the Defendant, who is the father of the Plaintiff, resides in the house of the bluart roof and the part of 67.59 square meters in warehouse (hereinafter referred to as the “instant house”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. On June 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant house was leased to the Defendant with a rent of KRW 3,000,000 per annum without a deposit.

Since the Defendant did not pay rent of KRW 6,00,000 for two years from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019, the Plaintiff sought delivery of the instant house to the Defendant, as well as seek reimbursement of the rent of KRW 6,00,000,000 calculated by the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from July 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery.

3. Determination

A. There is no evidence to acknowledge that a lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 2016.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act of having the Defendant reside in the instant housing is not a lease but a loan for use.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for overdue charge of KRW 6,000,00 is without merit.

C. However, the Plaintiff’s seeking the delivery of the instant house against the Defendant by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint can be deemed as having notified the intent to terminate the loan for use, and sought restitution following the termination thereof. The fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on November 1, 2019 is apparent in the record, and thus, the loan for use of the instant house was lawfully terminated.

The defendant is obligated to deliver the house of this case to the plaintiff as the restoration to its original state.

Meanwhile, as long as the loan for use is terminated, the Defendant may be deemed to possess and use the instant house without title from November 2, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant house.