1. The defendant shall display to the plaintiff (appointed party) an indication of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the real estate stated in the attached Form No. 1.

The facts that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected C own each 1/2 shares of the building listed in the separate sheet; however, the Defendant occupied and used the right edge of the first floor of the building in question (which correspond to approximately KRW 23.12m2m2 in the part (Ga) connected each point of the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1; hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”). There is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff (appointed party) unless he/she asserts and presents the legitimate source of right to possess the store of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant occupied and used the first floor (store) and the third floor (house) of the building in question with the permission of his mother C, so it cannot respond to the claim for the delivery of the store in this case by the plaintiff (appointed party). However, even if the loan for use was established without the time of return, in the case of the loan for use without the agreement on the time of return, the lender may terminate the contract at any time when the period sufficient to use and profit has elapsed (Article 613(2) of the Civil Act), the plaintiff (Appointed party) and the appointed party C, as well as the defendant, on March 28, 2019, by smelling the content certificate demanding the delivery of the store in this case by April 10, 2019 (Article 613(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

In addition, the defendant argues that since the defendant paid 135,00,000 won at the request of the Appointor C on behalf of the Appointor, he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until he received reimbursement of the above amount's beneficial expenses. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid the above amount's beneficial expenses to the store of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's claim based on this premise is without merit.