1. The defendant points out of the building stated in the attached list to the plaintiff (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (2) of the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an educational foundation that operates D secondary schools in Kimcheon-si C, and the Defendant is a person who served as the head of the above school administration office by February 9, 2014.

B. The Defendant occupies and uses part of 76 square meters in the ship connected each point in sequence among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, which are owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, which are owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On the part of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the building of this case was leased without compensation and legally occupied by the plaintiff, and that there was no notification of the eviction from the plaintiff.

The facts that the defendant used the building of this case for a period of ten years are without dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff and the defendant have established a loan relationship for use which does not specify a kind of period of time.

In the absence of an agreement at the time of a loan for use, the borrower shall return the contract or the object at the time when the use, profit-making, and the lender may terminate the contract at any time when the period sufficient to use, profit-making has elapsed. As long as the defendant was assigned to the head of the above school administration office on February 9, 2014, the use, profit-making was terminated under the contract, and the period sufficient to use, profit-making was expired, and the contract for the loan is deemed to have been terminated by the lawsuit at issue.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant paid 35,867,00 won to repair the building of this case, and the money transferred by the plaintiff, corporate tax fee, and corporate tax fee.