1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 830,943,426 and KRW 100,00,100 among them.

1. Basic facts and

2. As to the occurrence of a claim for return of unjust enrichment, the “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The generated portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment (up to two pages 8 and 6 pages 2) shall be cited for the corresponding part of this judgment. However, the part of the "strifed theory" (up to one to six pages 2 below) of the judgment of the first instance court (up to five pages 1 through 6) shall be construed as "Therefore, as the defendant is additionally seeking from May 15, 2009 to July 31, 2015 that the plaintiff is obligated to return to the plaintiff the benefits derived from the possession and use of the land of this case during the period from May 15, 209 to July 31, 2015."

3. Scope of return of unjust enrichment

A. The method of calculating the amount of unjust enrichment is that the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned to the Defendant due to the possession and use of the land in this case is the amount equivalent to that of the rent. The method of calculating the rent is based on the reasonable calculation method computed by multiplying the basic price of the land by the expected interest rate.

B. According to the result of appraisal conducted by appraiser E of the first instance trial on the land of this case, the basic price of the land of this case is as stated below in the table "basic price" in the table of unjust enrichment of paragraph (d) below.

C. In calculating the difference by the method under the hostile method, the expected interest rate that serves as the element may be determined by taking into account the interest rate on national and public bonds, long-term loans from banks, ordinary market interest rate, normal real estate transaction profit rate, loan rate as stipulated in the State Property Act and the Local Finance Act, and it does not vary depending on the location, type, article, etc. of individual land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da7286, Sept. 24, 2004; 2000Da12020, Jun. 23, 200). According to the appraisal results of the appraiser E in the first instance trial of the first instance, the above appraiser is the category of forest land in this case, and the land is natural forest land in Article 49(4) of the Land Compensation Guidelines established by the Korea Association, mainly on the grounds that the land is natural forest.