1. Defendant B: the Plaintiff:

(a) KRW 5,605,830 as well as 5% per annum from February 8, 2018 to February 21, 2019;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased 1593 square meters in I and 1593 square meters, and on September 29, 2008, the said land was divided into JJ large 1571 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and I large 22 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant B used sidewalk, etc. on the part (Ga) of the ship (Ga), which connects Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, 12, and 12 among the land in this case, to the part (Ga) of the ship connected in sequence Nos. 12, 14, 6, 7, 11, and 12, the part (Ma) of the ship (Ma), which connects Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 7 of the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, 12, among the land in this case, as the delivery parking lot and access road of the ship (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

C. The Defendant Incorporated Foundation G (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated”) uses the part (C) size of one square meter, five thousand square meters, five thousand square meters, five thousand square meters, six, one4, one4, and five thousand square meters in sequence in the ship (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated Foundation”) which connects attached Table 2 appraisal Nos. 2,3,13, and 2 among the instant land to the order of sequence 2,3, and 3,4,5,14, 13, and 3 in sequence. The part (d) in the ship (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated Foundation”) which connects the instant land to the public relations team and the main Vice Minister’s delivery and exit.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the result of this court's commission of appraisal to K branch offices of the Korea National Land Information Corporation in Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the Defendants’ respective charges for five years from January 24, 2013 to December 6, 2018, and the portion of Defendant B Si and Defendant Foundation should pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until the time when the Defendants deliver the said portion to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B, and Defendant Foundation respectively occupy and use the part of Defendant B and Defendant Foundation owned by the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B and Defendant Foundation are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of each land. (2) The purport of this Court’s entrustment of the royalty appraisal with respect to the LAppraisal Office and the entire pleadings is as follows.