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...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the seller of the building A located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table among the above buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. On May 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a management services contract with the Defendant on a set of two years from the commencement date of operation (occupant) of the contract period, and had the Defendant use the instant commercial building in order to ensure the efficient management of the building.

C. The Defendant occupied and used the instant commercial building, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant commercial building around October 15, 2013.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant established a loan relation for use with respect to the instant commercial building from May 2012 without an agreement on the time of return.

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 use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed, but even if 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 of loan when the sufficient period for use or profit-making has elapsed. Whether the sufficient period for use or profit-making has expired or not shall be determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the perspective of fairness by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669 delivered on July 24, 2001, etc.). In relation to this case, each of the descriptions of health care room, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9, and Gap evidence 10 can be seen by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings.