1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 53,681,980 against the Plaintiffs.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as that of paragraphs (1) and 2-A and (c). Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. Since the Defendant itself possesses only a part of the land of this case, it is unreasonable to calculate unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent based on the total land. However, the person who owns a building on the land occupies the entire land, barring any special circumstance, barring any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant occupies only a part of the land of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.

B. The Defendant’s defense against the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant is set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1 of this case, the defendant can recognize the fact that he paid taxes to each of the land of this case as shown in the following table. Accordingly, the plaintiff gains profit from discharging his liability equivalent to each of the above taxes, and the defendant suffered losses equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the amount equivalent to each of the above taxes to the defendant as unjust enrichment.

However, the Defendant’s above claim for return of unjust enrichment was made simultaneously due to the failure to set the due date, and it is apparent in the record that the Defendant’s written brief dated December 23, 2013, stating that each of the above claims by the Plaintiff was set off at an equal amount, was served on the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment was retroactively from the date of establishment of each of the above claims for return of unjust enrichment, which is set off against the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment.