2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Disposition of the first instance judgment No. 1-B

A. 1) In full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 through 6, the obligation to return unjust enrichment is deemed to have accrued, and the entire purport of the argument is as follows: Gwangju City C large 585§³ (hereinafter “instant land”).

(D) As originally owned D, the Plaintiff acquired ownership through an auction on September 19, 2018 through E and F, and 45.13 square meters and 11 square meters and 21.11 square meters and 6.76 square meters and 6.76 square meters and above-ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

(2) According to the above facts, G completed the registration of ownership preservation on May 22, 200, and thereafter, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of inheritance by agreement division as of September 19, 2005, and the Defendant occupied the instant land as the site of the instant building; the Plaintiff was issued a decision of permission for sale on the instant building in Suwon District Court, Sungwon District Court, Sungnam-nam I Real Estate Compulsory Auction, and paid the proceeds in full on April 22, 2020. 2), barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, was the owner of the instant land, and the Defendant, from September 19, 2018, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, the date of completion of delivery of the instant land from September 19, 2018 to August 28, 2005, including “the date of loss of Plaintiff’s ownership,” which was not stated in the purport of the claim as unjust enrichment, but is not desirable for the Defendant to lose ownership as the Plaintiff’s ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da244432 Decided February 14, 2019, supra, is obligated to pay a reasonable amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the occupation of the instant land by up to the day.

3..