1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court shall explain this part of the underlying facts are as follows.

In addition to adding the description of the claim, it is identical to the corresponding description of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

E. According to the State Property Act, if the rent calculated after 2006 for each of the instant lands is calculated, it is identical to the details of calculation of unjust enrichment in attached Form. The monthly rent of the instant land No. 1 based on the property value in 2011 is KRW 322,00 (i.e., KRW 77,280,000 x 0.05 x less than KRW 0.05 ± less than KRW 12 and less than KRW 12; hereinafter the same shall apply). The monthly rent of the instant land No. 2 is KRW 14,933 (= KRW 8,960,00 x 0 x 0.02 ± 12).

2. Occurrence of claim for return of unjust enrichment;

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants occupied the instant real estate, which is State property, without any legal cause, and gained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment for the period of possession without title to the Plaintiff entrusted with the management and disposal of each land of this case by the Republic of Korea as the owner.

B. The reasoning for the court’s reasoning on this part of the Defendant’s assertion is that the part of “the determination of the Defendants’ assertion on the land No. 1 of this case” in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of “the determination of the Defendants’ assertion on the land No. 1

3. Scope of return of unjust enrichment

A. In the case of a return of unjust enrichment, the scope of benefits to be returned by the beneficiary is limited to the scope of damages suffered by the victim, and the loss suffered by the victim is equivalent to the profits expected to be ordinarily enjoyed from the relevant property by the victim under social norms. Since the profits which the State is able to ordinarily enjoy from the miscellaneous property is a loan where a loan contract is concluded, the unjust enrichment to be returned by the occupant without permission of miscellaneous property is the loan fee