1. The Defendants shall have a single-story house (multi-family house-1 household) 80.44 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 200, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on a successful bid due to a voluntary auction on March 17, 2000 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list on March 20.

B. From March 17, 200, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said real estate, the Plaintiff had the remaining Defendants, who were Defendant C and their families, reside in a single-story house (multi-family house-1 household) of the said real estate, 80.44 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”).

C. The Defendants possess the building portion of this case by the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendants for use on or around March 17, 2000 on the part of the instant building.

(B) The plaintiff asserted that the contract was concluded with the defendants at the time, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).

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 borrowed when sufficient period for use or profit-making has elapsed. Whether sufficient period for use or profit-making under Article 613(2) of the Civil Act has expired or not should 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 by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances at the time of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669 delivered on July 24, 2001). In light of the following circumstances, the Defendants are 17 years.