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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the case's modification and use of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence

[2] According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement to use the forest of this case for the Defendant to install a vinyl house, etc. without compensation and plant plant, crops, and trees (hereinafter “instant contract”).

It is said that this was established.

However, in full view of the contents of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the developments leading up to the formation of the instant contract, and other circumstances that can be recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, it is determined that the period sufficient for the Defendant to use and benefit from the instant forest has expired based on the time the instant lawsuit was filed, and thus, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant contract pursuant to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act.

① When the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the instant forest, the Defendant appears to have commenced possession of the instant forest on the condition that the instant forest will be returned.

② The Defendant’s use of and benefit from the instant forest by the expiration date of the period indicated in the notice of termination dated November 28, 2013, which the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff, exceeds four years, and the use of and benefit from the instant forest exceeds six years and six years and six months, respectively.

③ The Defendant resides in the forest of this case without permission, and the Plaintiff recognizes the Defendant’s ownership as to mushrooms and trees planted by the Defendant in the forest of this case, and demands the transplantation or sale of mushrooms, trees, etc.

④ On October 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation by the court of first instance, all of the land in the instant forest.