beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) The real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be clarified;
(b) KRW 150,00,000 and its corresponding amount.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) is owned by the Plaintiff. Since 1997, the Plaintiff around 197, by allowing the Defendant (the head of the Plaintiff)’s family to use the said apartment without compensation, and the Plaintiff’s family and the Defendant’s family were living together in the said apartment. From February 201, the Defendant’s family living alone in the said apartment.
B. On October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150,000 to the Defendant KRW 150,000.
(1) The defendant, on February 4, 2015, led to the confession that "the plaintiff lent KRW 150,00,000 to the plaintiff without any condition," and then revoked the confession that the plaintiff donated. However, there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and thus, the revocation of confession is not effective). [The grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each of the statements, the purport of the whole arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments.
2. The judgment of this Court
A. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not determined for the purpose of the loan for use, the borrower shall return the object at the time the contract or the object is terminated, but even if the use and profit is not terminated in reality, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and claim the return of the object borrowed when the sufficient period for the use and profit expires. Whether the sufficient period for the use and profit under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired or not should be determined based on whether it is reasonable to recognize the right to terminate the contract to the lender from the perspective of fairness, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of the loan for use contract, the period of use and use of the borrower
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669 delivered on July 24, 2001, supra.