1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from August 2, 2014 to July 19, 2016.

According to the result of appraisal of rent for the instant automobile from March 1, 2014 to August 1, 2014 without title, the Defendant’s use of the instant automobile as unjust enrichment without title (hereinafter “instant automobile”) from March 1, 2014 to August 1, 2014, and according to the court’s appraisal of rent for the instant automobile from March 1, 2014 to August 1, 2014, it can be recognized that the rent for the instant automobile from March 1, 2014 to August 1, 2014 is equivalent to KRW 10,00,000,000, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the annual rent for the instant automobile from the following day to August 1, 2014 to the date of expiration of the use of the instant automobile from August 1, 2014 to the date of request for the alteration of the claim rate of KRW 10,000,000 to 15,716.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that from the car rental fee of this case calculated by appraiser B, the expenses such as vehicle rental company's employee's wages, the company's profits, insurance premiums, and the depreciation costs of the vehicle should be deducted.

In the case of return of unjust enrichment, the scope of benefits to be returned by the beneficiary is limited to the scope of the loss suffered by the victim, and here, the loss suffered by the victim is equivalent to the profit expected to be ordinarily enjoyed from the relevant property by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34711, Jan. 18, 2008). In the case of the Plaintiff’s lease of the instant automobile, it can be anticipated that the Plaintiff would have made profits equivalent to the rental fee of the Plaintiff’s lending and borrowing car company. Thus, the Plaintiff’s rental fee for the instant automobile appraised by the appraiser B can be ordinarily enjoyed from the instant automobile.