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. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) A person who occupies another’s land without the authority to return unjust enrichment ought to be deemed to have obtained, as his/her own, a benefit equivalent to the rent of the pertinent land from another’s property without any legal cause, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da71978, Dec. 13, 2012) and thereby, incurred considerable damages to the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da71978, Dec. 13, 2012). According to the above recognition, the Plaintiff, the implementer of the instant project, acquired the ownership of the instant land on Nov. 30, 201, which is the date of expropriation of the instant land pursuant to Article 45 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

Therefore, the Defendant occupied and used the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without any legal ground from November 30, 201, which was the date of the commencement of expropriation, to July 22, 2016, from November 30, 2011, to the date of the evictioning the instant land, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent for the instant land, and thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff equivalent to the said rent.

As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant land from November 30, 201 to July 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Scope of return of unjust enrichment 1) An appraiser D by the court of first instance (hereinafter “appraisal”)

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the commission of appraisal of rent as to the instant land, the fact that the sum of rent from November 30, 2011 to July 22, 2016 constitutes 46,871,500 can be acknowledged. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 46,871,50 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. (ii)