(a) 12,285,040 won and its corresponding amount shall be from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment;

A. On July 18, 1989, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 20, 1989, the Defendant completed registration of initial ownership relating to the building listed in Paragraph 2 of the Attached List (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for a compulsory auction on August 1, 2001 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of this on August 3, 2001.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2 (including additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, while the land and the building of this case belong to the defendant's ownership, due to a compulsory auction on August 1, 2001, the owner was changed by transferring the land of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant of this case among the land of this case, in addition to the site for the building of this case, within the extent necessary for the maintenance and use of the building of this case, in addition to the site for the building of this case, the legal superficies under the customary law for owning the building of this case is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Da353, Feb. 12, 1974). Since there is no evidence to determine the scope necessary for the maintenance and use of the building of this case, it is deemed that legal superficies under the customary

A. As to D, statutory superficies under customary laws for the ownership of the instant building (hereinafter “legal superficies of this case”) are acquired, and accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay rent to the Plaintiff according to the statutory superficies of this case.

Although the application for change of claim and the cause of claim state the same as seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff withdraws the existing claim seeking the removal of the building of this case and the delivery of the land of this case according to the Defendant’s legal superficies defense and sought only the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.