1. The defendant's KRW 47,567,645 and its portion

(a) starting January 1, 2010 for KRW 4,054,364:

(b) KRW 8,779,595;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From October 9, 2004 to December 31, 2012, the Defendant occupied 139.30 square meters and 6.94 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Republic of Korea, and used and profit from the said real estate.

B. The Plaintiff is an institution entrusted with the right to manage and dispose of the instant real estate.

C. The Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant on the imposition of indemnity on the part of the illegal possession of the instant real estate, but the Defendant did not pay the indemnity.

The loan charges calculated for the real estate of this case under the State Property Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be calculated as shown in the attached Form, and shall be KRW 47,567,645 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the determination, and since the right to impose and collect indemnity under the State Properties Act differs from the civil right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, the State may file a lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment with the owner of state property, separate from exercising the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment under the Civil Act.

The scope of benefits to be returned by the beneficiary is limited to the scope of damages suffered by the loss, and the loss suffered by the loss is equivalent to the profits expected to be ordinarily enjoyed from the property by the lossr under the social norms. Since the profits which the State can normally enjoy from the miscellaneous property are the loan in a case where the loan contract is concluded, the unjust gains to be returned by the illegal occupant of the miscellaneous property are equivalent to the loan charges prescribed by the statutes related to state property, barring

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Da76402 Decided July 16, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant is 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from the date following the expiry date of each pertinent period, such as written order of Paragraph (1), as well as the pertinent period, to the Plaintiff by October 22, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.