The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. With respect to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, the scope of benefits to be returned by the beneficiary is limited to the scope of the loss suffered by the beneficiary, and the loss suffered by the victim is equivalent to the benefits expected to be ordinarily recoverable from the property in question by social norms.

However, the profit which the State can ordinarily enjoy from miscellaneous property is a loan in a case where a loan contract is concluded. Therefore, the unjust enrichment to be returned by a person who illegally occupies miscellaneous property is equivalent to the loan fee stipulated in the statutes related to state property, barring special circumstances.

In addition, even according to the language and text of Articles 38(1) and 25-2(1) of the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009), the adjustment of the reduction of loan charges imposed on a person who has continuously occupied, occupied, or used or has been used for more than one year (hereinafter referred to as “ adjusted loan charges”) is not obligated, but is allowed to be determined at the discretion of an administrative agency, at the discretion of the administrative agency. ② Adjustment of the reduction of loan charges is a system for a lending party who has occupied, used, or has been used for, the miscellaneous property more than one year after the lawful conclusion of the loan contract. The calculation of unjust enrichment by applying the same standard to a illegally occupied occupant does not fit the purport of the lending contract adjustment system. ③ When an illegally occupied occupant occupies more than one year without permission, the calculation of unjust enrichment based on the adjusted loan charges would go more than the legitimate or short-term occupant who has been subject to the restriction on the loan period, and thus, is contrary to equity.