1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is among the land listed in attached Table 1 to the plaintiff.

. It is not permissible under the principle of good faith.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1538 delivered on May 9, 1989). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is with merit. Accordingly, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, which seeks to remove the building of this case and to deliver the land of this case as stated in the purport of the claim as the site of this case, is without merit.

C. In ordinary cases within the scope of return of unjust enrichment, the amount of profit from the possession or use of the pertinent real estate is equivalent to the rent for the pertinent real estate. In full view of the facts recognized as above, appraiser F, G’s appraisal results, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the rent for each of the instant land possessed by the Defendant from November 14, 2013 to March 31, 2015 (i.e., rent for the instant land KRW 11,269,757 (i.e., rent for the instant land 17,389,133) from November 14, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the rent for the instant land 103,200 won [20,000 won [23,00 won per unit price] from 20,000 won to 36,000 won per 278,000 won per annum * 36,365,2014]

From January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015, the monthly rent of each of the instant lands is KRW 460,553 for the instant land, and KRW 241,873 for the instant land, and is ratified as the same amount even thereafter.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a result of the acquisition date of ownership of each of the instant land, sought from November 14, 201 to March 31, 2015 by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff as to each of the instant lands from April 1, 2015, including KRW 11,269,757, and the following day of the said period.