Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the following amount shall be revoked, and the cancelled part shall be revoked:

1. The Plaintiff in the dispute filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the usage fees for the land occupied on the ground that the Defendant occupied part of the land, among ① 1, 142.10 square meters in Seoul, Jung-gu B (hereinafter “instant land”), 2, 3, 22 square meters in D, 22 square meters in D (hereinafter “instant D”) and 4, 13.20 square meters in Seoul, Jung-gu E-gu (hereinafter “instant land”), owned by the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment for the land occupied. The first instance court dismissed the Defendant by recognizing the possession of the instant land B, D, and E, and ordered the Defendant to pay unjust enrichment, and the Defendant did not have any possession of the instant land. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each of the lost parts.

2. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 1957, Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land B, the instant land C, and the instant land D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land on June 12, 1958.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estates") B.

The Plaintiff was established by the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and was entrusted by the Republic of Korea with the authority to manage and dispose of the property

C. The Plaintiff issued a disposition to impose indemnity on the Defendant seeking the payment of the amount calculated by adding the overdue interest accrued until April 26, 2012 under the State Property Act to indemnity for the reason that the Defendant occupied part of each of the instant real estate without permission from October 28, 2004 to December 31, 209, on the ground that he occupied each of the instant real estate without permission.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant owned a building on the F ground in Jung-gu, Seoul, and owned by the Republic of Korea; 0.3 square meters among the instant land B owned by the Republic of Korea; 6.3 square meters among the instant land C, 22 square meters among the instant land; and 5.6 square meters among the instant land E without permission.