A. Standard for determining whether a sufficient period for use and profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has elapsed

(b) recognized that a sufficient period for use and benefit has elapsed by applying the criteria under subparagraph (a);

A. Whether a sufficient period for use and profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has elapsed shall be determined based on whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract from the standpoint of fairness, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of the loan for use, the period of use and utilization of the borrower, and the circumstances that the lender needs to return.

B. A case where a sufficient period for use and benefit has lapsed by applying the criteria under paragraph (a).

Article 613(2) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 36806 delivered on November 26, 1993) (Gong194Sang, 198)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and the deceased non-party 1’s litigant et al., and five defendants’ misunderstanding system

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na20930 delivered on October 20, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not specified, the borrower shall return the object even 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 of the loan when the sufficient period for use or profit-making has elapsed. Whether the sufficient period for use or profit-making has expired or not shall be determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the equitable standpoint, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of the loan for use contract, the borrower’s period of use and use, and the circumstances that the lender needs to return, etc. (see

The records are acknowledged. On April 1981, the plaintiff's father, who was the deceased non-party 2's father, permitted the deceased non-party 1 to newly build and reside on the land of this case owned by the plaintiff at the time. The building of this case is constructed at the expense of the above non-party 1 and his children, and the transfer of ownership registration was made in the name of the plaintiff, and the above non-party 1 and defendant 1 occupied the land of this case without compensation and were living in the building of this case about about 13 years until the completion date of the argument of the court below. The plaintiff provided the building of this case as security for business financing. In particular, the plaintiff planned to use the land of this case as a site for oil station, and the building of this case was permitted by the government market of August 5, 1982, and the building of this case, and the building of this case cannot be easily constructed or dismantled, and it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 1 and the above decision of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)