1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part, such as the use of the land owned by the Defendant, is the same as that of the part concerning “1. Recognition” in the first instance judgment, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The summary is as follows:

On September 2, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the member-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 2,108.2 square meters (hereinafter “C land”) and operates the parking lot on the said land.

On March 29, 2004, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the above D large-scale D 2,212.7 square meters (hereinafter “D”) and the above 6th floor building, and operated a hotel in the above building from around that time, and used the land (hereinafter “the instant land part”) as part of the “C land” as part of the Plaintiff’s ownership for the entry into and exit from the hotel operated by himself.

B. Since September 2006, the Plaintiff attempted to expand and install a parking lot in operation in the “C” part of the instant land (hereinafter “instant construction”) on several occasions, and the Defendant had concerns over inconvenienceing the use of the hotel. The Defendant interfered with the said construction by either removing concrete constructed by the Plaintiff or occupying the instant part of the instant land by using a vehicle. The Plaintiff filed an application for a provisional disposition prohibiting obstruction of construction with the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch Branch 2009Kahap118, and received the decision of acceptance on August 26, 2009.

C. On October 8, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant part of the land and set the rent as KRW 2.190,000 per month.

On June 15, 2010, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the period prior to the conclusion of the said lease agreement, and that the Defendant paid damages due to the obstruction of construction until June 30, 2010. The above content certification reached the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and there are evidence Nos. 1 through 7.