1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the apartment of this case on December 7, 2004.

B. The defendant is residing in the apartment of this case from April 20, 2006.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A person who has been registered as an owner of a real estate is presumed to have acquired the ownership by due process and cause. The plaintiff is recognized as a legitimate owner because he completed the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment of this case as examined in the above facts of recognition.

Therefore, the defendant who occupied and used the apartment of this case is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the apartment of this case.

B. In addition, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period during which he occupies and uses the apartment of this case without authority.

We examine the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendant.

The plaintiff sought unjust enrichment from April 20, 2006, which the defendant started to reside in the apartment of this case, but even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant resided in the apartment of this case with the plaintiff's consent, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for delivery of the apartment of this case before the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, it can be deemed that the Defendant had the right to lawfully possess and use the instant apartment until April 20, 2016, which was clearly recorded that the date when the complaint of this case seeking to transfer the instant apartment against the Defendant was served on the Defendant, and it can be recognized that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant apartment without authority from April 21, 2016, which was next day.

On the other hand, according to the result of the first instance court's entrustment of appraisal of rent to appraiser D, the apartment of this case is rent.