beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition, and the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on March 2014 for the use of an apartment as indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant occupied the said apartment from that time, and the Plaintiff sent a written notification to the Defendant on April 6, 2015 to the effect that the loan for use is terminated and the delivery of the said apartment is changed.
B. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not determined, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed, but even if the use or profit-making 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 use or profit-making has elapsed. Thus, whether the sufficient period for use or profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired shall be determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from an equitable standpoint, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669 delivered on July 24, 2001). In this case, as recognized above, about two years have passed since the Defendant used the apartment of this case without compensation under the Plaintiff’s permission, as well as about two years have passed since the Defendant used the apartment of this case without compensation. It is reasonable to deem that the period sufficient for the Defendant to use and profit from the apartment of this case has already expired, and that the loan contract for use was terminated because the Plaintiff’s notice demanding the delivery of the apartment of this case reaches the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's apartment of this case according to the termination of the loan for use of this case.