1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3,281,822 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from January 29, 2015 to February 11, 2015; and (b) thereafter.
According to the results of the appraiser C’s survey and appraisal of the cadastral records of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the overall purport of the argument, the following facts are as follows: ① the Plaintiff owned the land of 68 square meters and E large-scale 69 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”); ② the Defendant, without a legitimate title, can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff occupied and used the land of this case in the following order: (a) the portion No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 2 of the attached drawings among the instant real estate from October 10 to October 20, 2014; (b) the portion No. 9 square meters of the attached drawings among the instant real estate; and (c) the portion No. 1,2, 10, 9, and 1 of the attached drawings, which are connected in order to each point of (c) the part No. 2, 2000 square meters in the ship; and (c) the Defendant occupied and used the land of this case from October 20 to 28, 214.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of complete payment, as the Plaintiff requested payment of damages for delay from October 29, 2015, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the claim for unjust enrichment and the cause of the claim in this case (the Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from October 21, 2014, but the due date of repayment of the claim for restitution for unjust enrichment is the time of filing of the claim for restitution for unjust enrichment. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated from the date of delivery of a copy of the claim in this case and the cause of the claim in this case until February 11, 201
The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim (the part of the claim for delay damages from October 21, 2014 to January 28, 2015) is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.