1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) 25,235,000 won and the interest thereon shall be paid from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On the ground of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) there is a building not registered (in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, the size of the (a) section (a) unit of the building connected in order to each point of (b) section 66-2, the indication 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, and 7, which connects each point of (b) section (b) unit of the building, 62m2, hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 30, 2009, the right to collateral security against the debtor was established on the instant land. At that time, the instant land and buildings were owned by the defendant.

C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant land on January 25, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 8, 201, at the auction procedure commenced through the enforcement of the aforementioned right to collateral security.

The Defendant resided in the building of this case prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership, and occupied and used the entire land of this case as the site of the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal to the Chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation Kim Jong-po, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff seeking the return of unjust enrichment shall seek the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the ground that the Defendant occupied the instant land without permission.

However, as seen earlier, since the land and buildings in this case were changed due to auction, the Plaintiff, the landowner, shall be deemed to have established legal superficies against the Defendant, the building owner (the main sentence of Article 366 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Defendant has a legitimate right to occupy the land in this case.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As seen earlier, even if the Defendant had the right to occupy the instant land based on statutory superficies, as seen earlier than the obligation to pay the land rent, the Defendant shall pay the land rent determined by the court (proviso 2 of Article 366 of the Civil Act) to the Plaintiff (Article 366).