2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, since the contract for the loan of this case was terminated.

If the borrower died, the lender may terminate the loan for use (Article 614 of the Civil Act), and according to the evidence of evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the defendant closed his/her business on December 31, 2012, and on December 5, 2016, the fact that the defendant was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act and completed his/her registration. The fact that the copy of the statement of grounds of appeal as of August 2, 2018 of this case, which expressed the plaintiff's intent to terminate the loan for use on the ground that the contract for the loan for use was terminated as of August 27, 2018, is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the loan agreement of this case was terminated on August 27, 2018, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the loan agreement of this case was actually concluded by the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the defendant cannot terminate the above loan of this case solely based on the fact that the defendant was dissolved. However, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 14, the borrower of the loan of this case is only recognized as the defendant, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. We examine the determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment. The fact that the Defendant occupied each of the instant real estate up to the present time and used the former culture, etc. is not a dispute between the parties. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the court of first instance’s commission of appraisal of rent as to appraiser D, the difference between December 11, 2016 and December 10, 2017.