1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From July 1, 2019, the above real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement for use (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiffs would use the real estate listed in the separate sheet of their co-ownership (each share of 1/3) (hereinafter “instant apartment”) by June 30, 2019 to the Defendant by June 30, 2019.

B. Under the loan agreement of this case, the defendant occupied and used the apartment of this case, and as of the date of closing argument of this case, the apartment of this case is occupied and used.

C. If there is no deposit for lease, the amount equivalent to the monthly rent of the apartment of this case exceeds at least 1,00,000 won.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant loan agreement on the apartment of this case was terminated upon the lapse of June 30, 2019, and the period of the loan for use expired.

Since July 1, 2019, the defendant occupies and uses the apartment of this case without any legal ground.

I would like to say.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant not only has the duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiffs, but also has the duty to obtain benefits equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the apartment of this case without any legal cause, and thereby has inflicted losses on the plaintiffs, the ownership holder, equivalent to their respective shares.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are obligated to return unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of the apartment of this case.

B. In regard to this, the defendant's act of bringing an action of this case against the defendant, who proposed that the loan contract of this case should be terminated by the expiration of the term of the loan of this case, but that the defendant should pay more than the rent to the plaintiffs, is prepared before the expiration of the term of the loan of this case and the period of the loan of this case expires, constitutes the abuse of rights as its primary purpose