1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) From March 10, 2017, Ga.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person having chonsegwon who completed the registration of chonsegwon (No. 11435, Mar. 12, 2013) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff had the Defendants, who are the couple of the Escopian Association Escopians and the couple of Escopians, use the instant building free of charge. The Defendants are using the instant building as of the date of the closing of argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants expressed their intent to “to terminate a loan for use of the instant building” and notified the Defendants to deliver the instant building by July 31, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from August 1, 2016 to the delivery of the instant building.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants used the instant building without compensation from March 18, 2013. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendants and the Plaintiff agreed to grant a loan for use without any agreement on return period with respect to the instant building.

The lender may terminate the loan for use without an agreement of return when the period sufficient to use and benefit has expired.

After the loan for use has been terminated, the borrower has no right to use the subject matter, and thus the lender is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until he returns the subject matter to the lender.

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that “Around July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants a wish to terminate a loan agreement for use,” and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, ‘the loan agreement on the building of this case' is terminated.

‘' dated March 8, 2017 containing the Plaintiff’s expression of intent.