1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) As regards KRW 84,413,00 and KRW 71,000 among them, KRW 84,413,000 shall be from December 8, 2018; and KRW 13,413,00.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 9, 1945, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From 1960 to 200, the Defendant, as shown in the attached Table 2, installed a 2,095 square meters of the instant land and used it for military installations for the purpose of military installations.

(hereinafter referred to as "military installations of this case" in total of the above facilities). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, and 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) or images; the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser B of this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant established the military installation of this case and occupied and used the whole land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the entire land of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment

B. Since the part occupied and used by the defendant is limited to the area where the military installations of this case are installed, not to the entire land of this case, the defendant is obligated to return only the amount equivalent to the rent for the area as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. 1) The term “the occurrence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment” refers to the objective relationship that appears to belong to the factual control of the person in terms of social norms. It does not necessarily mean the physical and practical control over the object, but should be determined jointly according to the concept of society by taking into account the time with the object, spatial relationship, principal relation, the possibility of exclusion from others’ control, etc. However, in order to have an objective relationship that belongs to such factual control, at least the interference of others should be excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da34543, Jul. 25, 2003; 2008.)