1. The Defendant paid KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff 5% per annum from March 7, 2017 to December 19, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet as the operator of the above real estate C Terminal on the ground (hereinafter “instant terminal”).

B. The Defendant used the instant terminal as a bus stop for the Defendant from around February 1984 to the above terminal. From around February 1997, 3 prices of bus vehicles belonging to the Defendant were 9:00-10-35, 10:40-12:30, 16:17:45 each day.

C. The amount equivalent to the rent for the instant terminal is KRW 6,397,700 each month from January 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of the appraisal of rent for appraiser D by this court, the result of each fact inquiry into the Inter-Korean Bus Transport Business Association by this court, the purport of the previous argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is deemed to possess the above terminal by allowing the bus belonging to the defendant to use the instant terminal.

Therefore, from January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff from January 1, 2016 to the date of loss of ownership or the end of the Defendant’s occupation.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion (1) argues to the purport that the Defendant used the instant terminal for a long period of time, and the Plaintiff also allowed the instant terminal and thus the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for loan of use was concluded, and thus, the claim for unjust enrichment is unjustifiable. However, in light of the above-mentioned facts, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the instant terminal usage fee with the bus company other than the bus affiliated with the Defendant, namely, the following: (a) the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the bus company other than the Defendant on the instant terminal usage fee; (b) the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant terminal on April 28, 2008, and sent to the Defendant a certificate of demand for consultation and payment of the said terminal usage fee several times thereafter, it is deemed that there was a loan of use agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.