1. The Defendant’s ownership of KRW 16,776,770 and real estate indicated in the separate sheet from April 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 238 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 235 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and its ground building attached to the Plaintiff’s land.

C. The Defendant occupies the part of the Plaintiff’s land, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached appraisal drawings, in sequence of the part on the part of the Plaintiff’s land, and the part on the ship, which connects each point of 4, 3, 5, 6, and 4 of the same appraisal drawings, 8 square meters and 6, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 6 of the same appraisal drawings.

(hereinafter referred to as “the part of the Plaintiff’s land occupied by the Defendant”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute. The entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1-2, the result of the appraiser E’s survey, the result of the appraiser F’s appraisal, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, who occupies and uses the part occupied by the Defendant among the Plaintiff’s land, is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, as sought by the Plaintiff, who is the landowner.

Furthermore, I examine the amount of unjust enrichment.

In ordinary cases, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate is equivalent to the rent for that real estate. The fact that the Defendant owned the Plaintiff’s land and occupied 13 square meters among the Plaintiff’s land is as seen earlier. According to the result of the appraisal of rent in this court, the amount equivalent to the rent for the above portion of land is 16,776,770 won from April 16, 2005 to March 31, 2016, and the annual rent is 1,419,600 won from April 1, 2016, and it is confirmed that the amount equivalent to the unjust enrichment thereafter is the same.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff in unjust enrichment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant occupies the defendant.