The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion on the possessor of a building site

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The Plaintiff is the operator of the B-Housing Business. ② The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, a land incorporated into the said business on January 16, 2012, as the land incorporated into the said business (hereinafter “instant land”).

(3) On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case on the ground of a consultation on the acquisition of public land. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of a consultation on the acquisition of public land on June 19, 2012 and July 2, 2012. (2) ① on August 7, 2009, the Defendant leased a light steel framed warehouse (hereinafter “instant building”) which is part of the instant building, and operated electrical and electronic parts manufacturing business, etc. at least.

② From February 2013 to February 22, 2013, the Defendant did not leave the instant building from the date of closing argument in the lower court, even after receiving compensation for the obstacles on the instant land from the Plaintiff according to the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling (date of opening the expropriation on April 17, 2013) on February 22, 2013.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, in relation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had ownership of the instant land and building, at least did not withdraw from the instant building after April 17, 2013, which was the date of expropriation, and thus, was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent or damages equivalent to the rent for the instant building site.

Among the reasons stated by the court below, the part that the defendant occupied the building site of this case in relation to the plaintiff who is the land owner is inappropriate for misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possessor of the building site of this case, but it can be deemed that the defendant has an obligation to pay unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the rent for the building site of this case in relation to the plaintiff who is the land owner of this case.