1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following changes to the 5th to 5th to 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The defendant asserts that the plaintiff comprehensively delegated the right to use and to manage the building of this case to B, etc. in accordance with the security trust contract of this case, and the defendant occupies the real estate listed in the separate sheet within the scope of the right to use and to use the building lawfully owned by B, etc. in relation to the plaintiff.

According to the records of evidence No. 4, the plaintiff and Eul et al. may recognize the fact that they actually continue to occupy and use the building of this case even after they transferred the ownership of the building of this case to the plaintiff, and they agreed to preserve the building of this case and to bear all the expenses incurred therefrom (Article 9 (1) of the Real Estate Security Trust Contract). According to this, it is deemed that the plaintiff and Eul et al. entered into a loan for use and a mixed contract for delegation of the building of this case between the plaintiff and

However, in a loan for use, the borrower cannot allow a third party to use or benefit from the borrowed object without the consent of the lender (Article 610(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, unless there is any assertion that the Plaintiff consented to the preparation of the letter of this case, even if B et al. allowed the Defendant to use or benefit from the real estate stated in the separate sheet, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, the owner of

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant's assertion that there was a dispute over the real estate stated in the separate sheet between B, etc. and the defendant as to the argument of violation of the good faith principle and the evidence submitted by the defendant.