부당이득금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determination, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the contract to use the instant real estate is not a lease but a loan for use, and that the contract of this case is not a loan for use. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the object of confession is “fact,” and the object of confession is “fact,” and the confession of the right holder does not have binding force of confession.
A loan for use becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to deliver an object to the other party in order to use it and make profits therefrom free of charge, and the other party agrees to return it after using it and making profits therefrom (Article 609 of the Civil Act). If it is acknowledged that the obligation of the land user is in a quid pro quo relationship with the use of land, it is reasonable to view it as a lease agreement regardless of its title (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da31672, Dec. 2, 1994). In full view of the purport of pleading in the statement of evidence evidence No. 4, the title of the lease agreement of this case is written as "real estate lease agreement", and the title of the lease agreement of this case is written as "one million won" (the circumstance that the lessee did not pay the deposit for the use of land is merely a breach of the lessee's obligation under the lease agreement and does not change the legal nature of the contract). Thus, the contract for the use of the real estate of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is clearly written.