1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff voluntarily sold the first floor of 102 multi-household 102 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the third floor of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, C, and D ground reinforced D’s reinforced concrete Alblar Gabro (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by auction, and acquired ownership on June 10, 2015.

B. From May 13, 1987, before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate, the Defendant exercised the right of retention and used it while occupying and using the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) If the lien holder of a building for which the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment has been established uses the building, the amount equivalent to the rent shall be refunded to the owner of the building in unjust enrichment;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59963 Decided June 30, 2006, etc.). The facts that the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate are as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant shall return the amount equivalent to the rent from the time when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. According to the appraisal result of the first instance trial appraiser E for the calculation of unjust enrichment, the monthly rent equivalent to the instant real estate from June 10, 2015 to May 4, 2016 is recognized.

The defendant asserts that ① since the first instance appraiser E is an appraiser selected by the plaintiff, there is no fairness in the appraisal result, ② the appraisal result is unfair in light of the content of the appraisal.

However, according to the Plaintiff’s written application for appraisal as of March 28, 2016, the first instance court’s adoption of E as an appraiser on April 15, 2016 by delivering the written request for appraisal to the said E as of April 15, 2016 is clear in records. As long as the appraisal method, etc. is against the empirical rule or unreasonable, etc., the appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless there is a significant fault (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84608, 84615, 84615, 8462, 84639, Jan. 1