1. The defendant shall display the attached drawing among the 40.56 square meters of the land floor of the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff, (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On April 201, 201, C, the Plaintiff’s mother, owned a building indicated in the separate sheet, and around 4, 201, he/she provided the Defendant with the land size of 40.56 square meters on the 40.56 square meters on the 40.56 square meters on the 40.56 square meters on the 40.56 square meters on the 40.56 square meters on the 40.56 square meters on the 40.5 square meters on the 40.4 square meters on the 2011 list without compensation. The Plaintiff donated the building indicated in the separate sheet from C on April 12, 2016, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to deliver the building of this case, but the Defendant did not have any dispute between the parties, and it is recognized by the purport of each entry and all pleadings as stated in the Gap evidence No. 1 through 4 (including each number).

B. C’s offering of the instant building to the Defendant free of charge is deemed a loan agreement under the Civil Act. In the case of a loan agreement for use without any agreement as in this case, the borrower shall return the use or profit in accordance with the nature of the contract or object, and the lender may terminate the contract at any time upon the expiration of the period sufficient for the use or profit. According to the above facts, the period sufficient for the use or profit of the instant building is deemed to have already expired. Thus, the loan agreement for use of the instant building on or around August 1, 2017, which was delivered to the Defendant by the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the loan for use against the Defendant, shall be deemed to have been legally terminated.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the defendant was permitted to occupy and use the building of this case from C until redevelopment of the building listed in the separate sheet, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is with merit.