A. 1) The Plaintiff’s real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”)

(2) The Defendant was using or making profits from the instant real estate while operating E in the instant real estate without making a moving-in report or business registration as to the instant real estate address, and did not demand a distribution in the said auction procedure. The Defendant did not make a demand for distribution in the said auction procedure.

3) As the Defendant did not put the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was subject to a real estate delivery order against the Defendant on January 10, 2020, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed. 4) The sum of rent from September 4, 2019 to January 10, 2020 on the instant real estate is KRW 9,296,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 12 evidence (including provisional number), the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal of fees to appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent while using and making profits from the real estate of this case without any justifiable authority from September 4, 2019 to January 10, 2020, and that the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the above fee. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 9,296,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 11, 2020 to the day of full payment.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant suggested that the plaintiff would find the defendant and pay the director's fees after the successful bid of the real estate of this case, and then seek the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent at present.