1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon receiving the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment added at the trial, the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff awarded a successful bid for each of the instant buildings in the Goyang-gu District Court G auction procedure for Goyang-gu Seoul District Court, and acquired the ownership thereof.

B. From August 14, 2013, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership on each of the instant buildings, the Defendant operated an automobile industrial company in each of the instant buildings from around August 14, 2013, and occupied and used each of the instant buildings.

C. At the time of August 14, 2013, the amount equivalent to the rent for each of the instant buildings is KRW 6,040,000.

【Fact-finding without any dispute over the grounds for recognition; entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3; the result of appraiser H’s appraisal of rent; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant occupied and used each of the buildings of this case without any legal ground, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the profits from use, and incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of return of unjust enrichment, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate in ordinary cases shall be the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate. On August 14, 2013, the amount equivalent to the rent of each building of this case is 6,040,000 won as seen earlier, and the subsequent rent shall be confirmed as the same amount.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 6,040,00 per month, which is equivalent to the rent from August 14, 2013, the acquisition date of ownership of each building of this case, to the day the delivery of each building is completed.

As long as the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case was accepted, the claim for damages arising from the tort that was selectively related to the claim cannot be determined separately.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is Nonparty 1, who was the owner of F, and two parcels (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of Pakistan as of March 31, 2010.