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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff was entrusted by the Republic of Korea, the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with the duties of managing and disposing of the said land.

B. The Defendant included the instant real estate in the Dong Seo-dong 11 Urban Planning Road, and used it as a road from October 24, 2005 to December 31, 201.

(In fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of whole pleadings)

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupied and used the instant real estate owned by the Republic of Korea, thereby gaining profits without any legal cause and causing damage to the Republic of Korea. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return unjust gains from possession of the instant real estate from October 24, 2005 to December 31, 201, to the plaintiff entrusted with the authority to manage and dispose of the instant real estate by the Republic of Korea.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 24, 2013, and claimed an amount equivalent to the amount of compensation incurred from October 24, 2005. Therefore, the part on the claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from the time the instant lawsuit was filed until June 23, 2008, which was five (5) years retroactively from the date the instant lawsuit was filed, should have already been completed and terminated under the National Finance Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable. 2) The Plaintiff’s determination on the interruption of extinctive prescription as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the Defendant’s disposition for imposition of indemnities and notice for payment was suspended pursuant to Article 96(4) of the National Finance Act.

However, the right to impose and collect indemnity under Article 72(1) and Article 73(2) of the State Properties Act differs from the civil right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment.