1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,157,430 as well as 5% per annum from March 27, 2019 to September 20, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer of the C Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant Improvement Project”) that performs redevelopment of the B members of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

B. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained approval of the management and disposal plan for the instant improvement project from the Seongbuk-gu mayor, and the Sungnam-si Mayor announced it (D) around that time.

C. The Defendant was residing in the second floor of the above building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list in the instant improvement project zone.

On February 8, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee determined the commencement date of expropriation on March 28, 2018 and rendered the adjudication of expropriation.

E. On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited compensation for losses for the said building with the Defendant as a depositee. On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the expropriation on March 28, 2018.

F. The Defendant used and benefited from the instant real estate by June 22, 2018.

G. Monthly rent of the instant real estate is KRW 412,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the result of the appraiser's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on March 28, 2018, which is the date of expropriation, and the Defendant continued to use and profit from the instant real estate until June 22, 2018, even though he/she lost ownership on the same day. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, barring any other special circumstances.

On the other hand, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate shall be the amount equivalent to the rent in ordinary cases, and the fact that the monthly rent of the real estate in this case was 412,000.