1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2001 to 2009, the Defendant performed the property management business, etc. on the Plaintiff’s own for the Plaintiff.

B. Around 2001, the Plaintiff granted the Defendant a free use of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 336.6 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant constructed a new building on the said land around that time.

C. In around 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) allowed the Defendant to use the building indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “D building”); and (b) the second floor part thereof (hereinafter “instant building”); and (c) the Defendant operated restaurant business in D building.

On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was against the Defendant.

In the first instance trial by filing a lawsuit seeking the removal of the C-ground building, delivery of its site, and delivery of the part of the D-building (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap52132 Decided September 28, 2012), the Defendant appealed but the Defendant was dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na5201 Decided August 19, 2015), and the Defendant’s appeal against this became final and conclusive on December 1, 2015 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da54110 Decided November 26, 2015).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 20, Eul evidence No. 23 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan for use without setting the duration period for the instant building. Considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff had permitted the use of the instant building from around 2005 to at least 10 years, a sufficient period for the Defendant to use and benefit from the instant building has elapsed.

On the other hand, it is clear that the complaint of this case, which contains the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the loan of use, reaches the Defendant on September 30, 2014. Thus, the above loan of use agreement is concluded on September 20, 2014 pursuant to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act.