1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 8,652,320 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from October 3, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 21, 1993, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 12, 1993 for each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

B. Each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 4 is located on “B” at Seopopopo City, and each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 is located on “C” at Seopo City, Seopopo City, and the Defendant occupies and uses it for the general public’s traffic.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above facts, insofar as the Defendant, as the possessor of the instant land, did not prove the existence of the source of possessory right, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant obtained profits equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the instant land without any legal cause, and that the Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the same amount.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return the benefits derived from January 28, 201, as sought by the Plaintiff, as a result of the acquisition date of ownership, to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, as long as the Defendant occupied the instant land from the date of closing the argument of the instant case until the date of closing the argument, but refused to return the unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff may file in advance a claim for unjust enrichment from the date of the completion of occupation of the Defendant

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that he consented to the use of the Defendant’s road even though he renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the instant lands, such as the Plaintiff’s absence of objection against the use of the Defendant’s road. However, the mere fact that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the use of each of the instant lands as a road or demand the payment of compensation, etc. therefor.