1. Of the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list, the Defendant shall indicate 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 5, and 6 among the buildings listed in the attached Table 2 list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a de facto marital relationship from around 2003 to 2011.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Defendant is the owner of the instant building, among the instant buildings, drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 5, 51.45 square meters in sequence, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3;

(4) On board (B) parts of 7.54 square meters connected to each point are used as a licensed real estate agent’s office (hereinafter “instant office”).

C. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content to the effect that the Plaintiff transferred the instant facts to the Defendant by August 5, 2016. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff reached the Defendant.

The defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff while using the office of this case, and currently uses it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act regarding the cause of claim, if the duration of the loan for use is not determined, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the contract or the object of the loan for use ends. However, even if the use and profit has not been completed in reality, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and claim the return of the object borrowed when the sufficient period for the use and profit expires. Whether the sufficient period for the use and profit has expired or not should be determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract from the standpoint of fairness by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of the loan for use, the period of use

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669, Jul. 24, 2001). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.