1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 677,484,626 as well as KRW 581,746,00 among them, per annum from January 1, 2009 to December 4, 2018.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the obligation to return unjust enrichment (1) and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) and the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s portion of approximately 1,000 square meters, such as the indication of the annexed drawing among the land for factory C 27472 square meters from November 30, 1996 to December 31, 2008, which is owned by the Plaintiff, from November 30, 1996 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Defendant is recognized to have known that he did not have the right to possess and use the instant land for the purpose of installing a site office container or storing construction materials, etc., while occupying the instant land without permission. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the gains accrued from the possession and use of the instant land as unjust enrichment, on the ground that the Defendant obtained pecuniary gains equivalent to the rent for the instant land by occupying and using the instant land without any legal cause, which is owned by the Plaintiff, and thereby, incurred property loss equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the gains accrued from the occupancy and use of the instant land to the Plaintiff. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that he used the instant

B. The scope of return of unjust enrichment, and the amount of profit from the possession and use of the real estate in ordinary cases, is equivalent to the rent of the real estate. According to Article 748(2) of the Civil Act, a malicious beneficiary is liable to compensate for the loss if he/she sustained a loss with interest added thereto.

However, in full view of the appraiser D’s appraisal result and the purport of the entire argument, it is recognized that the monthly rent from December 1, 1996 to December 31, 2008 for the land of this case was a total of 581,746,000 as indicated below, and the defendant is the defendant.