1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 6, 2010, the Plaintiff permitted the Defendant to use the instant building free of charge at the request of the Plaintiff’s father (her father) Nonparty D, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to the effect that “the use of the instant building may be allowed,” and the Defendant used the instant building free of charge from that time to that time.

C. In order to dispose of the instant building, the Plaintiff requested through D to deliver the instant building to the Defendant at the latest up to the end of December 2016, 2016, but the Defendant did not comply therewith.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant for the loan of use of the instant building (hereinafter “instant loan of use”) around March 6, 2010.

In addition, pursuant to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not determined, the borrower shall return the object at the time when use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed, but even if 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 borrowed when sufficient period for use or profit-making has elapsed. Whether sufficient period for use or profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired or not should be determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the fair standpoint, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669 delivered on July 24, 2001). This case is a case.