1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 819,596,800 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2010.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: (a) the sixth-party 16 to seventy-party 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[2] As to the claim for interest, etc., Article 75 of the State Property Act provides that “When the State refunds fees, rents, proceeds from sale, or indemnities for State property overpaid or erroneously paid, the State shall refund the amount of interest prescribed by Presidential Decree for the period from the day following the date of erroneous or erroneously paid or overpaid payment to the date of repayment.” The above provision concerning additional charges for return of erroneous or erroneously paid amounts is special provisions concerning Article 748 of the Civil Act concerning the scope of return of unjust enrichment, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the State, which is a beneficiary. Meanwhile, the beneficiary is liable to compensate for the delayed payment from the date following the date of receiving the claim for performance. Therefore, after the purchaser demanded the return of the proceeds from sale of State property overpaid or erroneously paid, the beneficiary may exercise one of the claims for additional charges for return of erroneous or erroneously paid amounts under Article 75 of the State Property Act and the damages for delay from the date of such payment at his/her own discretion to the date of repayment (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da17848, Sep. 10, 2009).