1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the second floor of the real estate indicated in the attached Form, the scope of the establishment of the building drawings shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 16, 1984 in the name of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 109.8 square meters, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on September 11, 1987 in the name of D with respect to the real estate indicated in the registration of the attached real estate.

B. The above A.

The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 19, 2014 in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the land indicated in the paragraph and the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

C. Around July 20, 1985, the Defendant made a move-in report to Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, but transferred to 209 Dong 402 on June 11, 1993. On February 13, 2001, the Defendant made a move-in report to Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and occupied the instant building from the above date to the present date, and the Defendant did not pay D, etc. the instant building usage fee.

On September 14, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant building, but the Defendant rejected the said demand.

From January 1, 2016, the monthly rent of the instant building is KRW 400,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant concluded a loan agreement for use of the building with D around February 13, 2001, and used and profited the building of this case.

In addition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received the instant building from D and acquired the said loan agreement, taking into account the relationship with the Defendant, and then expressed the intent to terminate the said loan agreement on September 14, 2016.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the term of the above loan agreement was stipulated, and thus, it constitutes a loan for use without fixing the term. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the term of the loan for use is not determined, the borrower shall be deemed to have completed the loan for use by the nature of the contract or the object.