1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. Trees, trees, and medicinal trees on the surface of 374 square meters on the 374 square meters wide prior to Gyeong-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On the land cadastre of the instant land, E was registered as its owner, but on February 16, 1995, registration of ownership preservation was completed in F and A’s name with respect to each one-half portion of the instant land. The F’s share was transferred to Plaintiff B on November 5, 2004.

B. On April 2, 1991, a sales contract (No. 1) dated April 2, 1991 between G and the Defendant on the land, etc. in this case was prepared between G and the Defendant.

C. On August 24, 2004 and March 28, 2007, the Defendant obtained certification of eco-friendly agricultural products with respect to a farm including the instant land from the Seongbuk-gu Branch of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service.

The Defendant is occupying the present land of this case by planting about about 50 pieces of trees on the instant land.

E. The amount equivalent to the rent from November 1, 2005 to October 31, 2016 of the instant land is the sum of KRW 1,259,632, and the rent from November 2016 is KRW 16,269 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1 and 2, the result of the appraisal of rent, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the claim of this lawsuit, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant, at least from November 1, 2005, occupied and used the instant land from November 1, 2005 to the date. Thus, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, sought compensation for delay from November 1, 2005 to October 31, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8914, Feb. 1, 2008; 207Da8914, Mar. 14, 2017; and Defendant’s agent’s liability to return unjust enrichment from his/her possession of another’s land was delayed from the time of receiving the claim for performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8914, Feb. 1, 2008).