2...

A. On May 23, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on the construction work that the Defendant newly constructed the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) in the construction cost of KRW 700 million. Under the said contract, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with each construction business operator for each process and completed the instant building by concluding a subcontract with each construction business operator.

B. The plaintiff completed the preservation registration of the building of this case on May 2, 2006. At that time, the plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the defendant for use not setting a period with respect to the sixth floor of the building of this case. The defendant completed the moving-in report on the sixth floor of the building of this case on May 9, 2006 and resided in the sixth floor of the building of this case from that time to that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 25 (including each branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not determined for the claim, the borrower shall return the object at the time when use or profit-making is terminated according to the nature of the contract or the object, but even if use or profit-making is not terminated in reality, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and claim the return of the object borrowed when the sufficient period for use or profit-making expires. Whether the sufficient period for use or profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired or not should be determined based on whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract from the perspective of fairness, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of the loan for use contract

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669, Jul. 24, 2001). It is recognized by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings.