건물명도(인도)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance judgment. In full view of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the circumstances in which the judgment confirming that the removal of the Defendants against the Defendants is null and void becomes final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2019Da256488 Decided October 31, 2019), it is recognized that the facts of the first instance judgment and the determination thereof are legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420
(However, the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are required to add to the following paragraph 2 with respect to the contents alleged by the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor emphasized in the trial). 2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor’s assertion is, regardless of the validity of removal against the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor expressed their intent to terminate the loan of use in accordance with the legal principles of the loan of use under the Civil Act through the institution of the instant lawsuit, irrespective of
Therefore, a loan contract was terminated, and the Defendants are obliged to deliver the first or second building to the Plaintiff or the succeeding intervenor.
B. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the remaining period is not determined for a loan for use, the borrower shall return the object at the time of termination of the proceeds of use due to the nature of the contract or the object, but even if the proceeds of use are not completed in reality, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and demand the return of the object borrowed.
However, whether sufficient period of profit from use has elapsed shall be decided on the lender from an equitable standpoint, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of the loan for use contract, the period and status of use of the borrower, and the circumstances that the lender needs to return.