[Judgment of the court below]

Incheon Metropolitan City Facilities Management Corporation (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Lee In-sea, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Gahap7559 Decided January 13, 2012

May 23, 2012

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 262,015,111 and KRW 231,945,561 among them, the amount of KRW 30,069,50 per annum from May 10, 2011 to KRW 30,069,50, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from August 17, 2012 to the date of full payment, and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one of which shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (i) the amount of KRW 255,342,156 as well as the amount of KRW 32,961,296 as of May 10, 201, and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from June 25, 2011 to the date of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay the following shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (i) the amount of KRW 255,369,156 and the amount of KRW 32,96,296 from May 10, 201, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 25, 201 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) First loan agreement and conclusion of a delegation agreement on investment and management rights;

(1) On April 21, 2003, Nonparty 1 entered into a loan agreement (hereinafter “the first loan agreement”) with the Defendant on April 21, 2003 with respect to the land size of 5,49.52 square meters and 4,468.7 square meters and 4,000 square meters and 4,000 square meters and 4,000 square meters and 48.7 square meters and 1.

B. On June 19, 2003, Non-party 1 started installation of various convenience facilities and interior works, including entering into a contract for the construction of interior works with respect to the △△△△△△△△△△ from among the loan facilities of this case with the Dogp Co., Ltd. on June 19, 2003 (the representative Non-party 2; hereinafter referred to as the "Dogpppp") in order to carry on the wedding business and the wedding business (hereinafter referred to as the "the business of this case"), using the object in accordance with the first loan agreement. On July 1, 2003, Non-party 1 entered into a business registration under his own name.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court (hereinafter “the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court”) who introduced by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2 shall be the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court (hereinafter “the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court”) shall be the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court and the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court (hereinafter “the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court”) who entered into an agreement on the delegation of investment and management rights to convert the subject of the instant business into the juristic person and operate the instant business. The main contents are as follows.

- In January 2004, the project of this case is established through consultation with the defendant who is the present contractor, and the project of this case shall be implemented, and at the time of the establishment of the company, 40% of the shares of the co-Plaintiffs in the first instance court

- The co-Plaintiffs, etc. of the first instance court shall pay KRW 1,600,000 for the project of this case.

- The co-Plaintiffs, etc. of the first instance court shall have all management rights for the company established from January 1, 2004, and shall have all the authority, such as personnel and finance, as the actual representative director, and may appoint an agent, if necessary.

- The non-party 1 does not participate in the exercise of management rights by the joint plaintiffs in the first instance trial, and is not legally responsible due to the exercise of management rights by the joint plaintiffs in the first instance trial.

- The co-Plaintiffs, etc. of the first instance court shall allocate accurately the profit settled on a quarterly basis of January 1, 2004 in proportion to the shareholder's investment amount.

Applicant After entering into the “Agreement on Delegation of Investment and Management Right”, the first instance court appointed the Plaintiff as an agent for exercising the management right of the instant business, and transferred Nonparty 1’s deposit passbooks, seals and other accounting books necessary for operating the instant business from January 1, 2004 to the Plaintiff, and operated the instant business from January 1, 2004.

(v) However, unlike the originally scheduled terms in the “Investment and Management Delegation Agreement”, the instant business operator was not converted into a corporation. Nonparty 1’s total share in the instant business that was transferred by Nonparty 1 to investors recruited to raise funds for the instant business, resulting in a problem surrounding the share allocation between the co-Plaintiffs, etc. in the first instance trial and investors, and the co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial operated the instant business without allocating profits from the instant business to Nonparty 1 and investors.

(b) Conclusion of secondary loan agreements;

피고와 소외 1은 2007. 1.경 임대목적물을 기존의 ○·□측 △층에서 아래 임대물건의 표시와 같이 ○측 ☆, △, ▽층(이하 ‘이 사건 대부시설’이라 한다)으로 변경하는 대부계약을 체결하였다. 그 주요내용은 아래와 같다.

A lease contract for public property (lease)

Display of Rental Articles

Building: 282, 482, 82, 882, 8,000 square meters of total area (8,677.70 square meters of area) in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

-주경기장 ○측 ☆층 : 2,013.60㎡

- △△ Group on the ○ side of the stadium: 5,499.50 square meters;

-1,164.60 square meters on the side of the stadium ○○;

Article 3 (Loan Charges)

(1) The rent shall be paid in a lump sum for the first year of the beginning of each year within the date specified in a payment notice issued by the defendant pursuant to Article 26 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on Public Property Management

(2) The determination of annual rent after the first year shall be made by the defendant in comprehensive consideration of the value of the property in the initial year of the loan of this loan, the value of land and property in the corresponding year, price fluctuation rate, etc. based on the successful bid rate, and may adjust the increase in rent pursuant to

C. Dispute on the instant loan facilities

(1) Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking confirmation of the absence of an “investment and management delegation agreement” and filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant loan facilities, but lost all of them.

B. On June 22, 2009, Non-Party 3 and Non-Party 4, delegated by Non-Party 1, who continued disputes over the operation of the instant loan business and possession of the instant loan facilities as above, mobilized manpower with the number of instances on June 22, 2009, excluded the possession of the Plaintiff, etc. at the first instance trial co-Plaintiff, etc. and its employees, and occupied the instant loan facilities.

Referencely, the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court, etc. filed an application against Nonparty 3 and 4 for an order of provisional disposition, and received the decision of acceptance on September 11, 2009 by the Incheon District Court 2009Kahap1749. Although Nonparty 3 and 4 intended to enforce the above decision on September 22, 2009, they transferred their possession to the Defendant and eventually failed to recover the possession.

D. Defendant’s notification of termination of the loan agreement and temporary permission for the Plaintiff

(1) On June 30, 2009, the Defendant notified Nonparty 1 that the instant loan facility was terminated by August 29, 2009, and notified Nonparty 1 that the instant loan facility was returned to Nonparty 1 by August 29, 2009 (as seen earlier, Nonparty 3 and 4, delegated by Nonparty 1, transferred possession to the Defendant).

She tried to select a lessee again in accordance with a new procedure, but during the process, the Defendant permitted temporary use of the instant loan facilities on October 8, 2009 to the Plaintiff on two occasions until January 31, 2010.

Article 28(1) of the Act provides that the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant loan facility to the Defendant on June 26, 201, when the period of temporary permission for use expires.

E. The Defendant’s imposition of loan charges against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s payment

(1) In relation to the instant loan facilities, the Defendant imposed loan charges (including indemnity after the lapse of the period of temporary use permit) on the Plaintiff as follows, and the Plaintiff paid the loan charges (including value-added tax, arrears, and interest on installment).

(1) On October 8, 200 to November 10, 2009, 72,52,060 won; (2) on December 1, 2009 to December 31, 209 to December 31, 209, 41, 650, 250; (3) on January 1, 201 to 31, 209; (4) on January 1, 201, 206 to 10. 4. 1, 20; and (5) on January 1, 2010 to 20. 3. 4. 1, 206; and (4) on January 1, 2010 to 1, 204; and (5) on January 1, 2010 to 20. 4, 201.

The grounds for calculating loan charges during the period of temporary use and the details of the plaintiff's payment.

㈎ 2009. 10. 8.부터 같은 해 12. 31.까지(①, ②)

1) The value of the instant loan facilities for the year 2009 is as follows.

◎ 건물: 560,640원(감정평가액) × 8,677.70㎡ = 4,865,065,728원

◎ 부지: ☆층 부분 920,000원(감정평가액) × 2,013.6㎡ × 1/3( ☆층 감액비율) = 617,504,000원

△△○ 920,00 won 】 5,499.5 square meters 】 1/4 (Reduction rate of △△△△) = 1,264,885,00 won

The amount of KRW 920,000 x 1,164.6 square meters x 1/5 (the ratio of the reduction of the Ⅳ layer) = 214,286,400 won

Total KRW 2,096,675,400

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 가액 합계: 6,961,741,128원

2) The loan charges for the instant loan facilities in 2009 are 107,811,621 won (6,961,741,128 won x 0.065 x 85 days ± 365 days). If value-added tax is added 10,781,162 won, it shall be 118,592,783 won.

3) The Plaintiff paid KRW 114,202,310 ( KRW 72,552,060 + KRW 41,650,250) that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff.

㈏ 2010. 1. 1.부터 2010. 1. 31.까지(③)

1) The value of the instant loan facilities for the year 2010 is as follows:

◎ 건물: 548,960원(감정평가액) × 8,677.70㎡ = 4,763,710,192원

◎ 부지: ☆층 부분 901,600원(감정평가액) × 2,013.6㎡ × 1/3( ☆층 감액비율) = 605,153,920원

△△△○ 901,600 】 5,499.5 】 1/4 (Reduction rate of △△△△) = 1,239,587,300 won

The amount of KRW 901,600 x 1,164.6 square meters x 1/5 (the ratio of the reduction of the Ⅳ layer) = 210,000,672 won.

Total 2,054,741,892

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 가액 합계: 6,818,452,084원

2) Accordingly, the rent for January 2010 is 38,510,243 won (6,818,452,084 won x 0.065 x 365 days ± 365 days) and the rent for January 2010 is 42,361,267 won if value-added tax is added to 3,851,024 won.

3) The Plaintiff paid KRW 40,839,880, which the Defendant imposed on this.

【Temporary Use Permit Period and Details of Payment of Compensation

㈎ 2010. 2. 1.부터 2011. 4. 30.까지(④ ~ ⑨)

1) The indemnity amount from February 2010 to December 12 is 497,90,183 won (6,818,452,084 won x 0.065 x 334 days x 365 days x 120%) and value-added tax is 49,790,018 (referring to the calculation method of the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) more than 547,690,201 won.

2) The value of the instant loan facilities in 2011 is as follows:

◎ 건물: 537,280원(감정평가액) × 8,677.70㎡ = 4,662,354,656원

◎ 부지: ☆층 부분 883,200원(감정평가액) × 2,013.6㎡ × 1/3( ☆층 감액비율) = 592,803,840원

△△△○ 883,200 】 5,499.5 】 1/4 (Reduction rate of △△△△) = 1,214,289,600 won

[Attachment-story] 883,200 won 】 1,164.6 square meters 】 1/5 (number of reduction of ▽story) = 205,714,94 won

Total 2,012,808,384

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 가액 합계: 6,675,163,040원

Accordingly, the indemnity from January 1, 201 to April 30, 201 is 175,127,017 won (6,675,163,040 won x 0.065 x 0.065 x 120% x 365 days x 120%) and the indemnity from January 1, 201 to April 30, 192,639,718 won is added to value-added tax 17,512,701.

3) Ultimately, from February 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011, an indemnity is KRW 740,329,919 in total ( KRW 547,690,201 + KRW 192,639,718).

4) The Plaintiff paid KRW 717,728,070 ( KRW 123,310,110 + KRW 145,442,70 + KRW 145,442,70 + KRW 17,389,870 + + KRW 145,442,70 + KRW 140 + KRW 140,69,990) that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff.

㈏ 2011. 5. 1.부터 2011. 6. 26.까지(⑩)

1) From May 1, 2011 to June 26, 2011, the indemnity amounting to 83,185,33 won (6,675,163,040 won x 0.065 x 0.065 x 57 days x 365 x 120%) is KRW 91,503,866 if it exceeds value-added tax 8,318,533 won.

2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 90,111,240, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 35, 39, 40, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 (including Serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 2009. 10. 8. 피고로부터 이 사건 대부시설에 대한 임시사용허가를 받을 때부터 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층을 제외한 △층(5,499.50㎡)만 사용하고 있었다. 그럼에도 원고가 2010. 2. 1.(임시사용허가 기간 종료일)부터 2011. 6. 26.(이 사건 대부시설 인도일)까지 이 사건 대부시설 전체를 점유하고 있었음을 전제로, 위 기간 동안의 이 사건 대부시설 전체에 대한 변상금을 부과하여 원고가 이를 납부한 것은 원고가 점유하지 않았던 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 부분에 대한 변상금까지 납부한 것이어서, 피고는 법률상 원인 없이 원고의 재산으로 인하여 위 금액 상당의 이익을 얻고 원고에게 손해를 가한 것이다. 그러므로 피고는 원고에게 위 금액 상당인 청구취지 기재 금액을 반환할 의무가 있다.

B. Defendant’s assertion

원고는 2004년부터 이 사건 대부시설에서 제1심 공동원고의 위임을 받아 이 사건 사업을 영업해오면서 이 사건 대부시설 전체를 점유해왔다. 원고는 피고로부터 이 사건 대부시설 전체에 대한 임시사용허가를 받아 이를 점유하다가, 임시사용허가 기간이 경과하였음에도 이 사건 대부시설에서 철수하지 않은 채 이 사건 대부시설을 점유하였었는데, 임시사용허가 기간이 지나 무단점유한 때부터는 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층을 사용하지 않았다고 볼 수도 없다. 또한 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층에는 합계 면적 287.8㎡인 창고 6개가 있는데, 그 창고에는 이 사건 사업의 영위에 필요한 물품이 보관되어 있을 뿐만 아니라, 창고를 출입하기 위해서는 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층의 나머지 부분을 통행할 필요가 있고, 이 사건 대부시설 중 ▽층에는 이 사건 사업을 수행하는데 사용되는 냉방기의 실외기가 설치되어 있으므로, 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆층 2,013.6㎡, ▽층 1,164.6㎡ 또한 원고가 무단점유한 것으로 보아야 한다. 그러므로 피고가 원고로부터 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 부분을 포함한 이 사건 대부시설 전체에 대하여 변상금을 납부받았던 것에 어떠한 잘못이 있다고 볼 수 없다.

3. Determination

가. 원고가 이 사건 대부시설에 대한 임시사용허가 기간 경과 후 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 부분을 점유하였는지 여부

(1) If a person continues to use, profit from, or occupies the instant loan facilities without obtaining a permit to use, profit from, or loan contract from, the Defendant entrusted with the management of the instant loan facilities by the head of Incheon Metropolitan City, a local government, or without obtaining a permit to use, profit from, or loan contract after the expiration of the lease contract period, he/she is obligated to pay an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the loan charges for the portion occupied and used from that time under Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management

그러므로 피고가 원고로부터 이 사건 대부시설의 임시사용허가 기간이 경과한 2010. 2. 1.부터 원고가 이 사건 대부시설을 피고에게 인도한 2011. 6. 26.까지 기간 동안의 이 사건 대부시설 전체( ☆층 2,013.6㎡, △층 5,499.5㎡, ▽층 1,164.6㎡)에 대한 변상금을 징수하기 위해서는 원고가 이 사건 대부시설 전체를 점유·사용하여야 한다. 그런데 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층 5,499.5㎡를 원고가 이 사건 사업을 위하여 점유·사용하였음은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 을 제23호증의 1, 2, 을 제24호증의 3, 4, 5, 6의 각 영상 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고가 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆층에 있는 창고 74.14㎡, ▽층에 있는 창고 213.66㎡[125.1㎡ + (37.91㎡ + 6.37㎡) × 2]를 점유하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 더 나아가 원고가 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆층 2,013.6㎡, ▽층 1,164.6㎡ 중 위 창고 부분( ☆층 74.14㎡, ▽층 213.66㎡)을 제외한 나머지 부분까지도 점유·사용하였다고 인정할 증거가 없다.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that “The instant project is carried on the wedding business and the plastic property business, and is always equipped with goods and facilities in a fixed location, so there is little time to use the warehouse, and since goods stored in the said warehouse are not usable as they have been kept prior to the expiration of the temporary use permit period, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occupied and used the said warehouse part. ② The Defendant only demanded to pay the rent even after the expiration of the temporary use permit period, and there was no fact that the indemnity was paid. Therefore, in calculating the rent to be paid to the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall not add up the amount of the compensation pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act when calculating the rent to be paid to the Defendant (the foregoing note aims to dispute the amount equivalent to 20% of the rent exceeding the rent).

First of all, we examine the plaintiff's above (1) 1, 2, and 23-1, 24-3, 4, 5, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 24-24-3, 5, and 6, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above assertion in that the goods stored in the above warehouse part are food, kitchen furniture, appliances, and chairs required for annual conference, etc., and the above goods are used frequently in the wedding hall business and the housing cover business operated by the plaintiff.

Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s above (2). From February 1, 2010 to June 26, 2011, the Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant loan facility without any authority. As seen earlier, in calculating indemnity pursuant to Article 81(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, 20% of the loan charges should be added to the Plaintiff’s loan charges. However, it cannot be said that the Defendant waived the collection of indemnity from the Plaintiff or exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay indemnity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above (2) note is without merit.

⑶ 피고는 “① 원고는 2004년부터 이 사건 대부시설 전체를 점유하면서 예식장업 등을 행하여 왔는데, 이 사건 대부시설에 대한 임시사용허가 기간이 끝난 이후에도 계속하여 이 사건 대부시설 전체를 점유하여 왔을 뿐, 특별히 이 사건 대부시설 중 일부 부분에서 철수하는 등으로 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 부분을 피고에게 반환한 사실은 없으므로, 계속하여 이 사건 대부시설 전체를 점유하면서 이 사건 사업을 행하였던 것으로 보아야 한다. ② 원고는 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층에 있는 창고를 점유·사용하였는데, 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층 부분에서 위 창고에 가기 위해서는 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 나머지 부분을 통해서만 출입할 수 있었으므로 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 나머지 부분까지도 점유·사용한 것으로 보아야 한다. 또한 원고는 이 사건 대부시설 ▽층에 냉방기용 실외기를 설치하고 사용하였으므로, 이 사건 대부시설 ▽층 부분을 점유·사용하였던 것으로 보아야 한다.”고 주장한다.

먼저, 피고의 위 ①주장에 관하여 살펴본다. 원고가 피고로부터 이 사건 대부시설 전체에 대한 사용·수익허가를 받거나, 이 사건 대부시설 전체에 대하여 대부계약을 체결하였다면, 원고로서는 사용·수익허가의 내용이나 대부계약에서 정한 바에 따라 대부료를 지급할 의무가 생길 것이다(사용·수익허가의 내용이나 대부계약의 내용에 따라 사용·수익의 권한을 갖게 된 시설 중 일부를 사용하지 않았다고 하여 바로 그 부분 대부료 지급을 면할 수 있는 것은 아니다). 그러나 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 피고로부터의 사용·수익허가나 대부계약 기간이 끝난 후 다시 사용·수익허가나 대부계약을 받지 않은 채 이 사건 대부시설을 계속 사용·수익하거나 점유할 경우에는 공유재산 및 물품 관리법 제81조 , 같은 법 시행령 제81조 에 따라 그때부터 변상금을 납부할 의무를 부담하고, 그 변상금 산정기준은 원고가 ‘점유·사용한 부분’에 대한 대부료의 100분의 120에 해당하는 금액이라고 보아야 한다(무단점유자에 대하여는 변상금을 징수함으로써 제재를 달성할 수 있다). 그런데 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층 전체와 ☆, ▽층의 일부를 제외한 나머지 부분까지도 원고가 이를 점유·사용하였음을 인정할 증거가 없고, 오히려 갑 제38호증의 1 내지 12의 각 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 대부시설 ☆, ▽층 부분은 이 사건 대부시설이 있는 축구경기장의 관중석으로 출입할 수 있는 공간으로서, 축구경기가 있는 경우 축구경기 관람객이 출입하거나 축구경기관람객을 위한 편의시설을 설치할 수 있는 공간일 뿐이고, 원고가 행하였던 예식장업이나 뷔페업을 위한 시설은 설치되어 있지 않았음을 인정할 수 있어, 원고가 위 부분까지 점유·사용하였다고 볼 수 없다. 따라서, 피고의 위 ①주장은 이유 없다.

다음으로 피고의 위 ②주장에 관하여 살펴본다. 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 원고가 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층에 있는 창고( ☆층 74.14㎡, ▽층 213.66㎡)를 점유·사용하였다고 하여, 원고가 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆층 2,013.6㎡, ▽층 1,164.6㎡ 전체를 점유·사용하였다고 볼 수 없으며, 원고가 위 창고를 이용하기 위하여 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층의 일부를 통행하였다고 하여 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆층과 ▽층 전체를 점유·사용하였다고 볼 수도 없다. 또한 을 제24호증의 1, 2의 영상에 의하면 이 사건 대부시설 ▽층에 냉방기 사용을 위한 실외기가 설치된 사실을 인정할 수 있기는 하나, 그 설치장소가 이 사건 대부시설 밖의 실외이고, 건물의 일부분을 임차한 임차인으로서는 냉난방의 가동을 위한 시설을 설치하기 마련인데, 이를 위한 실외기 설치공간에 대하여 별도로 임대차계약을 체결하지 않는 것이 일반적인 상거래 관행인 점에 비추어 보면, 위와 같이 실외기가 설치된 공간이 사회통념상 과다한 면적에 이르지 않은 경우까지도 그에 대하여 변상금 지급의무가 발생하는 무단 점유·사용이라고 보기 어려운데, 대부료를 납부하는 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층의 면적에 비추어 볼 때 을 제24호증의 1, 2의 영상에 나타난 실외기의 설치면적만으로는 변상금 지급의무가 발생할 정도의 면적을 점유·사용하고 있다고 보기도 어렵다. 따라서, 피고의 위 ②주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

B. Determination as to whether the Defendant bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment

(1) Indemnification that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant

㈎ 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층 부분의 변상금

1) From February 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011

A) From February 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

◎ 건물: 548,960원(감정평가액) × 5,499.50㎡ = 3,019,005,520원

◎ 부지: 901,600원 × 5,499.5㎡ × 1/4( △층 감액비율) = 1,239,587,300원

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층 부분의 가액: 4,258,592,820원

Accordingly, the indemnity amount is 310,972,948 won (4,258,592,820 won x 0.0665 x 3365 x 365 x 120%) and the value-added tax is 31,097,294 won (Provided, That where the indemnity amount is collected pursuant to Article 81 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, the liability for value-added tax is limited to the amount equivalent to the rent out of the pertinent indemnity, but the Plaintiff filed a claim on the premise that the value-added tax on the total amount of the indemnity should be paid to the Defendant when calculating the amount of the indemnity of the △△△ out of the instant loan facilities. Accordingly, it shall be calculated according to the Plaintiff’s request. hereinafter “the portion of the loan facilities of this case”).

B) The value of the △△ Group among the instant loan facilities in 2011 is as follows.

◎ 건물: 537,280원(감정평가액) × 5,499.50㎡ = 2,954,771,360원

◎ 부지: 883,200원 × 5,499.5㎡ × 1/4( △층 감액비율) = 1,214,289,600원

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 중 △층 부분의 가액: 4,169,060,960원

Accordingly, the indemnity from January 1, 201 to April 30, 201 is 109,37,884 won (4,169,060,960 won x 0.065 x 120 days x 365 days x 120%) and the indemnity from January 1, 201 to April 30, is 120,315,672 won when adding value-added tax 10,937,78 won.

C) Ultimately, from February 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011, an indemnity is a total of KRW 462,385,914 (342,070,242 +120,315,672).

2) From May 1, 2011 to June 26, 2011

The indemnity from May 1, 2011 to June 26, 201 is 51,954,495 won (4,169,060,960 won x 0.065 x 57 days x 365 days x 120%) and the indemnity is 57,195,49,944 won when it is added.

㈏ 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층에 있는 창고 부분의 변상금

1) From February 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011

A) From February 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

◎ 건물: 548,960원(감정평가액) × 287.8㎡= 157,990,688원

◎ 부지: 901,600원 × 74.14㎡ × 1/3( ☆층 감액비율) = 22,281,541원

901,600 won 】 213.66 square meters 】 1/5 (Reduction ratio of ▽story) = 38,527,171 won

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 창고 부분의 가액: 218,799,400원

이에 따른 변상금은 15,977,271원(218,799,400원 × 0.0665 × 334일 ÷ 365일 × 120%)이고, 부가가치세 1,331,439원을 더하면 17,308,710원이 된다(앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 공유재산 및 물품 관리법 제81조 에 따라 변상금을 징수하는 경우 당해 변상금 중 대부료 상당액에 대하여만 부가가치세 납부의무가 있다. 이하 ‘이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 부분’의 계산에서 같다).

B) From January 1, 2011 to April 30.

◎ 건물: 537,280원(감정평가액) × 287.8㎡ = 154,629,184원

◎ 부지: 883,200원 × 74.14㎡ × 1/3( ☆층 감액비율) = 21,826,816원

883,200 won 】 213.66 square meters 】 1/5 (Reduction ratio of ▽story) = 37,740,902 won

◎ 이 사건 대부시설 중 ☆, ▽층 창고 부분의 가액: 214,196,902원

Accordingly, the indemnity from January 1, 201 to April 30, 201 is 5,619,587 won (214,196,902 won x 0.065 x 120 days x 365 days x 120%) and the indemnity from January 1, 201 to April 30, 201 is 6,087,885 won if value-added tax is added.

C) Ultimately, from February 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011, an indemnity amounting to 23,396,595 won (17,308,710 won + 6,087,885 won).

2) From May 1, 2011 to June 26, 2011

From May 1, 2011 to June 26, 2011, indemnity is 2,669,304 won (214,196,902 won x 0.065 x 57 days ± 365 days x 120%) and it is 2,891,746 won if value-added tax is added to 222,442 won.

㈐ 원고가 이 사건 대부시설과 관련하여 납부하여야 할 변상금은 545,824,199원(462,385,914원 ＋ 57,149,944원 ＋ 23,396,595원 ＋ 2,891,746원)이다.

【Compensation paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant

As seen earlier, the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as indemnity from February 1, 2010 to June 26, 2011 is KRW 807,839,310 ( KRW 4.23,310,110 in the foregoing table) + KRW 145,42,700 + KRW 145,442,70 + 6.700 + 17,389,870 + 880 won + 145,442,70 won + 149,69,90 + 90,000 + 90,111,240 won in the foregoing table).

• Amount to be returned to the Plaintiff by the Defendant

Ultimately, among KRW 807,839,310, which the Defendant received from the Plaintiff from February 1, 2010 to June 26, 2011, the amount exceeding KRW 545,824,11 ( KRW 807,839,310 - KRW 545,824,199) that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Defendant, is 262,015,01,011 ( KRW 807,839,310 - KRW 545,824,199) that the Defendant gains profits from the Plaintiff’s property without any legal ground and inflicted damages on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant

따라서, 피고는 원고에게 262,015,111원 및 그 중 231,945,561원[원고가 2010. 2. 1.부터 2011. 4. 30.까지의 변상금으로 2011. 5. 9.까지 납부한 717,728,070원 - 위 기간 동안의 변상금 485,782,509원(이 사건 대부시설 △층 부분의 변상금 462,385,914원 ＋ 이 사건 대부시설 ☆, ▽층 창고부분의 변상금 23,396,595원)]에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2011. 5. 10.부터, 나머지 30,069,550원[원고가 2011. 5. 1.부터 같은 해 6. 26.까지의 변상금으로 2011. 6. 24. 납부한 90,111,240원 － 위 기간 동안의 변상금 60,041,690원(이 사건 대부시설 △층 부분의 변상금 57,149,944원 ＋ 이 사건 대부시설 ☆, ▽층 창고부분의 변상금 2,891,746원)]에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2011. 6. 25.부터, 각 피고가 그 이행 의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 당심 판결 선고일인 2012. 8. 17.까지 민법에서 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법에서 정한 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance differs in part from this conclusion, the part against the plaintiff who ordered the above payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and order the defendant to pay the above amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-hae (Presiding Judge)