Where the lender terminates the contract as a road after the lapse of the period sufficient for use and profit-making, the liability of the local government for damages which illegally occupies the immovables after termination of the contract.

In a loan agreement for use, even if the object is a road site, if the period sufficient for use and profit-making has elapsed, the lender may rescind the contract at any time, and since the occupation of the real estate by a local government which is the borrower after the contract for the loan for use is illegal possession, it cannot be exempted from

Attorney Park Han-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 74Na484 delivered on August 1, 1975

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act with respect to a loan for use, if there is no agreement on the time to return the object borrowed, the borrower shall return the object to the lender at the time when use or profit-making is completed according to the nature of the contract or object. However, if the period sufficient for use or profit-making expires, the lender may terminate the contract at any time. Thus, the court below concluded a loan for use with the defendant around 1930 the real estate owned by the plaintiff, and continued to possess and manage it as a road site. The plaintiffs terminated the above loan for use after the expiration of the period sufficient for use or profit-making. Since the plaintiffs terminated the loan for use on March 30, 1974, the defendant's possession of real estate after the termination of the contract for the loan for use, the confirmation of the fact or interpretation of the legal principle is just in light of the records, and even if the object is the site of the loan for use, the lender may terminate the contract at any time after the expiration of the period sufficient for use or profit-making.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without any reason. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)