beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B delivers the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. Defendant C is entitled to the above real estate.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 10, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on September 10, 200, to acquire the collateral obligation of KRW 132,000,000 with the maximum debt amount set up on the said real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on October 10, 202.
B. After that, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to Defendant C, a mother-friendly spouse, and Defendant B, his spouse, so that the Defendants were able to reside in the said real estate.
C. Defendant B paid the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the interest on the secured debt above to September 2012 after receiving the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the request for delivery and removal of a building, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff agreed with Defendant B for a loan for use of the real estate of this case on or around October 2002.
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). According to the health stand in this case and the aforementioned evidence, Defendant B has a long run.