1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 6,656,826 as well as to November 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the former owner of the Dong Government-si C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant Ho Lake”), resided here.

B. On December 19, 2016, the order to commence a voluntary auction was issued to the Jung-gu District Court E with respect to the instant family room, and the Plaintiff paid the price on July 6, 2017 after the successful bid in the subsequent auction procedure, and acquired the ownership of the said family room.

C. Since then, the Defendant did not deliver the instant family room to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for an order of delivery of real estate with the District Court F, upon receipt of an extradition order on September 21, 2017, filed an application for enforcement with an enforcement officer on October 24, 2017, and completed delivery execution by enforcement officer on May 3, 2018.

On May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid an urban gas fee of KRW 200,160 in the instant lake room.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not deliver the instant family room to the Plaintiff, resulting in the Plaintiff’s loss equivalent to the rent of KRW 6,953,333, which was executed from July 6, 2017 to May 3, 2018 when the delivery was executed.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid the gas fee of KRW 200,160 on behalf of the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the total amount of damages and indemnity amount of KRW 7,153,493 (=6,953,333 won) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The amount of damages suffered by a legitimate owner by illegally occupying an object by an illegal occupant of the real estate in the legal doctrine related to the Defendant’s liability for damages is the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate, barring any special circumstance.

In addition, the compensation for damages is different from the return of unjust enrichment, and it does not require the unauthorized occupant to gain the benefit.

In other words, even if the unauthorized Possessor did not properly use or benefit from it, it is considered that it was not available.