1. The Defendant’s KRW 112,287,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from May 31, 2014 to September 26, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate listed in the attached list on the grounds of sale, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Article 66836 of the Seoul Central District Court’s Registration Office on June 12, 1987, but sold it to B on May 30, 2014.

B. Before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate indicated in the attached list, the Defendant occupied and used the land as a passage along which subway calls by installing underground facilities, which are 4.34 meters of earth volume (the vertical distance from the top of the underground structure to the surface of the earth) and the obstructed area (the area calculated by adding 0.5 meters to both sides, which are the minimum flow width, to the width of the underground structure) 202.6 meters.

C. The usage fees of the underground portion from September 8, 2006 to May 30, 2014, when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit from September 8, 2016, the ten-year prescription period of which was calculated from September 8, 2006, were as indicated in the separate sheet, and the aggregate amount is KRW 112,287,00.

Seoul Qro is a local government-invested public corporation established pursuant to Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act for the purpose of the construction and operation of subway roads in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the defendant is a local government-invested public corporation that comprehensively succeeds to the claims and obligations of Seoul Qro on May 31, 2017, which was established by merger between Seoul Qro and Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation, and comprehensively succeeds to the legal proceedings on May 8, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, each entrustment of appraisal to appraiser C by this court, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, from September 8, 2006 when the period of ten years elapsed from September 8, 2016 when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case, had been extended to 10 years from September 8, 2006 to May 30, 2014 when the plaintiff lost its ownership, gained profits without any legal grounds and suffered losses to the plaintiff, the owner of the land. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.

I would like to say.

The scope of obligations to be returned.