2. Revocation of the part demanding a counterclaim by Defendant 4 in the original judgment.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 55,00 to Defendant 4.

Defendant 4’s remaining counterclaims are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal against the principal lawsuit by the defendant, etc. shall be borne by the defendant, etc., while the costs of appeal incurred by a counterclaim shall be borne by the defendant, etc., and one of them shall be borne by the defendant 4, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 1: (a) Defendant 1: (b) the part indicated in the attached drawing (B) of the building in question and the part indicated in the attached drawing (B) of the building in question; (b) Defendant 2: (c) the part indicated in the attached drawing (B) of the building in question and the part indicated in the attached drawing (C) of the 1st 7th bebbeb, and the part indicated in the attached drawing (C) of the 1st 7th beb, and the part indicated in the 1st 7th beb, among the buildings in question to the Plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants. Defendant 4 claimed a counterclaim, which the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays 120,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 4.

The judgment was sought that the counterclaim lawsuit cost should be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays 120,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 4.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second trials on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, and the part against the same defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit were assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

First, as to the claim against the defendant 4, the court below's decision that the registration of transfer of real estate was cancelled under the name of the defendant 1, 5, and the building and site in the separate list No. 5, 1956, 15493, which had been accepted on July 27, 1956, and was completed in the name of the defendant 4 under the name of the co-defendant 5, and the registration of transfer was completed in the name of the defendant 1, 12, 2, 3, 4-1, 4-1, 5, and 9-1, 6-1, 5-1, 7, and 9-1, 6-1, 4-1, 6-1, 7, and 9-1, 6-1, 6-2 (each witness examination report) of the court below's decision that the plaintiff's joint ownership transfer was cancelled under the name of the non-party 1, 65-2, and the non-party 1, who was under the jurisdiction of the non-party 5-party 2.

As to this, the defendant 4: First, since the defendant purchased the real estate in this case, the part indicated in the annexed drawing (b) part 1: 7:5 bbbeb, which belongs to the same defendant's ownership after the defendant purchased it, the extended part can only be seen as belonging to the same defendant's property at the time when the plaintiff's husband is occupied, and the extended part can also belong to the owner of the original building in accordance with the legal principles of conformity. Thus, the above argument is without merit. Second, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not have a duty to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as well as the cost of extension of the above portion and the cost of repair of the house, so long as the plaintiff did not have a duty to recover the registration of transfer of ownership as long as it did not receive the return of the above amount, the plaintiff's purchase of the real estate in this case can not be denied by making contributions to the expenses so long as the plaintiff does not have the right to request the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as it did not have the right to purchase the real estate in this case.

If so, among the plaintiff's main claim, the part that the defendant 4 seeks to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership by subrogation of the defendant 5 of the court below's joint defendant 5 shall be cited.

Next, we examine the part as to Defendant 1, 2, and 3. As to the part as to the building indicated in the attached list, Defendant 1 possessed 6-7 Hobbes(A) and 6-7 Hobbes(b) and 7-7 5 bbbes(c) from among the buildings indicated in the attached list, and Defendant 2 possessed 1-7 bbes(a) and 5 bbbes(c) from among the same building as indicated in the attached list, respectively, and possessed 5 bbes(c) of the same map as indicated in Defendant 3 without dispute between the parties and extension by Defendant 4, unless there are special circumstances, the possession of the above Defendants is illegal, barring special circumstances. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff did not register the ownership of the building in this case, each of the above Defendants may claim against Defendant 4 for an order of rejection of possession by each Defendant, etc., and even if they did not possess it in each of the whole parts of the building, each of them can not be asserted as a legitimate right of possession.

(2) Furthermore, we examine Defendant 4’s counterclaims.

The summary of the cause of the counterclaim by the defendant is as follows: (a) after the defendant purchased the real estate in this case from the co-defendants of the court below's judgment; (b) the building was extremely damaged and thus, it is difficult to move into the building; (c) it was repaired by contributing 60,000 won to maintain and preserve it on August 1956; and (d) at the time of repair, the building’s construction level below the original floor of the building was extended to 6th 7th 7th bbbebbes in its original floor at the time of its repair, 60,000 won was contributed as the extension cost. Accordingly, the plaintiff made the unjust enrichment of 120,000 won in total of the necessary cost and extension cost, and thus, it is linked to the plaintiff’s claim for a counterclaim to recover it.

First, if we consider the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the necessary cost of the above counter-claim, the court below's witness Eul evidence No. 1 which is recognized as having been genuine by testimony such as part of testimony (1 and 2) as part of non-party 2's testimony, and considering the whole purport of the pleading, it is inevitable for defendant 4 to repair the building at the time of the purchase of the building of this case to the extent that the roof or fence is destroyed, and that it is so long as it is long as it is difficult to repair it without repair, so it is inevitable that the building should be maintained without repair. Thus, around August, 1956, it can be recognized that the non-party 2 repair the part damaged for the maintenance of the building and contributed 55,000 won as the repair cost. Thus, even if the plaintiff had continuously resided in the house, the plaintiff is obligated to return the above amount equivalent to the above cost of unjust enrichment to the defendant 40,000 won. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return it to the defendant 500.

Second, according to the reasoning of the court below's testimony of non-party 3 and non-party 2's testimony of the above non-party 4 and the purport of oral argument, the part of non-party 1 and non-party 5's 1's 7's 7's 7's 5's 7's 5's 1's 4's 5's 5's 5's 6's 5's 5's 6's 5's 5's 6's 5's 6's 5's 5's 6's 5's 6's 1's 5's 6's 5's 6's 1's 5''''''''''''''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''''' 1''''''''' 2'''''4'''''''''''''''''''''''''2'''''''''''2'''''''''''2''''''''''''4''''''''''.

Therefore, Defendant 4’s counterclaim claim is justifiable to the extent that it seeks payment of KRW 5,00,00, which was decided on the first part of the above first part. Thus, it is reasonable to accept the counterclaim and dismiss it on the ground that there is no reason

If so, the original judgment is just in its judgment and conclusion as to the part of the plaintiff's claim for counterclaim as to the plaintiff's principal lawsuit, and therefore, all appeals filed by the defendant 1, 2, and 3 and the part on the principal lawsuit by the defendant 4 are without merit. Thus, each of these appeals is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the part on the part on the plaintiff's claim for counterclaim among the defendant 4's appeal is partially unfair in its judgment and conclusion, and the appeal as to the part on the claim for counterclaim among the defendant 4's appeal is with merit within the above unfair limit. Thus, the original judgment decided to change the part on the claim for counterclaim among the original judgment pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is recognized as unnecessary to declare provisional execution, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 95, 89, 92, and 93 of

The term of office of the judge (Presiding Judge) shall be 50 U.S.