A. The Defendant occupied 948 square meters (286 square meters in a house site, 73 square meters in a warehouse site, and 589 square meters in a warehouse site) from February 9, 2004 to February 8, 2009 among the forest land B 1,355 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoul, and the Defendant occupied the said land from February 9, 2004 to February 8, 2009. The Plaintiff is

B. Each use of the above land under the State Property Act and the Enforcement Decree, and the calculation rent for the area of the above land shall be 8,507,922 won from February 9, 2004 to the end of each year, and 10,548,080 won for the year 2005 and for the year 2006, respectively, and 15,237,970 won for the year 2007 and for the year 2008, respectively, and from January 1, 2009 to the end of each year;

2. up to 8.8 1,628,167 Won

(A) The Plaintiff imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff on February 24, 2009, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit to revoke the disposition to impose indemnity on the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s dismissal of the Defendant’s claim became final and conclusive as Seoul High Court 201Nu12131, Aug. 19, 2011, which was reversed and remanded on August 19, 201). [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute any dispute, the written evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 9-1, 2, and 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The right to impose and collect indemnity under Article 51(1), (4), and (5) of the former State Property Act differs from the civil right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment. As such, the State may file a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment, separately from the exercise of the right to impose and collect indemnity against an unauthorized occupant, as the owner of

The scope of benefits to be returned by the beneficiary is limited to the scope of damages suffered by the victim, and the loss suffered by the victim is equivalent to the profits expected to be ordinarily enjoyed from the relevant property by the victim under the social norms. Since the profits which the State can normally enjoy from the miscellaneous property are the loan in a case where the loan contract is concluded, the unjust gains to be returned by the illegal occupant of the miscellaneous property are the loan charges under the statutes related to state property (Articles 38(1) and 25(1) of the former State Property Act, barring special circumstances.