The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 27,736,531 and to the plaintiff from June 22, 2019 to July 2, 2020.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts of the claim is as stated in the “1. Basic Facts” of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial modification or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance, "The real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case")" shall be referred to as "the real estate of this case" listed in the attached list.

(2) Of the first instance judgment, the Defendants were amended to “Lease 2, 3, and 4.” Following the second sentence of the first instance judgment to read “for the Defendant on March 22, 2018,” and “deposited five below the second sentence to read “for the Defendant on March 21, 2018,” and “the Defendant received it on March 27, 2018.” The second sentence of the first instance judgment to read “ma. On the other hand, the Defendant engaged in the franchise business in the Defendant’s occupied portion by August 28, 2018, and the amount equivalent to the fees from March 28, 2018 to August 28, 2018,” respectively, and the second sentence to read “the first sentence of the first instance judgment as a result of the appraiser’s assessment of the first instance judgment to read “the first sentence of the first instance judgment as the result of the appraiser’s assessment” (the second sentence to read “the second sentence of the first instance judgment as the result of the appraiser’s assessment”).

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on March 28, 2018, which was the starting date of expropriation (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

(1) Article 45(1) of the Act provides that the Defendant shall continue to occupy and use the part occupied by the Defendant, among the instant real estate without any legal cause, even after receiving the business compensation for the portion occupied by the Defendant, and thereby obtain the profit equivalent to the rent and thereby, caused the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate to incur the same amount of loss. Therefore, the Defendant shall be deemed to have paid the Plaintiff the same amount.