1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 8,710,000 from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building.

B. From September 2008, the Defendant is operating a restaurant at the instant store from September 2008.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The description of evidence No. 1, the result of the party appraiser Kim Jong-soo's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) On February 2008, the Plaintiff leased the instant store owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as KRW 1.5 million without a deposit. Since the Defendant was in arrears from around 2010, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff on the ground that the said lease was terminated on the ground that it was in arrears. 2) Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have concluded a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement for use without a period of time for occupying the instant store.

However, since five years of time elapsed since the Defendant occupied the instant store, and the period sufficient for use and profit-making has elapsed, the Plaintiff terminated the loan agreement pursuant to Article 613 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The following facts are acknowledged based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant decided to rent the instant store at KRW 1.5 million monthly rent between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; (b) the entries in the Plaintiff’s 1.5 million Evidence Nos. 2, and Nos. 6-1 through 3 are insufficient to acknowledge the fact of entering into a lease agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise; (d) the evidence and the evidence Nos. 3 through 11, and 15 (including the virtual number, and the evidence No. 15 is presumed to be the authenticity of the document as a whole due to the lack of dispute over the Defendant’s stamp image portion); (e) the Plaintiff, on March 7, 2005, was found to have comprehensively taken into account the following facts: (i) the Plaintiff’s father on March 3, 2003; (iii) the size of Dowon-gun D prior to 293 square meters; (v) the size of 1,638 square meters prior to G 1,444