logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.26 2016나9918
건물인도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff to use the instant apartment owned by the Plaintiff without rent around May 2013; (b) from that time, the Defendant occupied the instant apartment from that time; and (c) the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a written notice to the effect that the Plaintiff terminated the loan for use and transferred the instant apartment around September 18, 2014; and (d) the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a written notification to the effect that the delivery of the instant apartment would be changed by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the

B. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not determined, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed, but even if the use or profit-making has not been completed 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 has elapsed. Thus, whether the sufficient period for use or profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired shall be determined based on whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the perspective of fairness, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23699 Decided July 24, 2001). The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the back to the instant case and the entire purport of each of the entries and arguments in Gap's 4 through 9, Eul's 3 through 5, namely, the defendant filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff's spouse D's partner, and the defendant filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, and Eul filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, and the defendant was under a criminal trial against the plaintiff on the ground of defamation against the plaintiff, and thus, a series of disputes arising between the plaintiff, D, and the defendant are likely to undermine mutual trust.

arrow