A. The Defendant’s father C was a farmer on the ground of 656m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant followed this, followed up to September 2003, installed a vinyl, etc. on the instant land, and occupied the entire land of this case by leaving the farmer.

B. On September 24, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on the grounds of sale and purchase. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with E to sell the instant land in KRW 336,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to E on June 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, by occupying and using the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without any title, and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 20, 2006 to June 19, 2016, which the Plaintiff seeks.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff had the defendant use the land of this case without compensation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. We examine the scope of unjust enrichment.

In full view of the following: (a) Nos. 4 and 10 evidence Nos. 4 through 10; and (b) the result of this court’s request for appraisal of appraiser F by this court; (c) as a result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to F by this court, it was impossible for an appraiser to confirm through a reliable lease contract, passbook copy, etc. from around 2006 to the present time when the investigation was conducted by nearby residents of the land of this case; and (d) it is impossible to seek an appropriate lease case within the land of this case or its neighboring