2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

A. The Counterclaim Plaintiff is the owner of a house with a 569 square meters and a building with a brick roof of the building-to-land (hereinafter “instant house”) in the Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and the Counterclaim Defendant is the owner of a building with a square meters of 833 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Counterclaim Defendant is the owner of a building with a 833 square meters away from Jeonnam-Gun, Jeonnam-gun, Seoul-

B. However, there was a dispute between the Lessee and the Counterclaim Defendant on the ground that some of the instant housing units constituted a violation of the boundary of the instant land.

C. On September 7, 2017, the Counterclaim Plaintiff paid 2.4 million won to the Counterclaim Defendant.

Then, on December 19, 2017, the counterclaim Defendant filed a lawsuit against the counterclaim Plaintiff seeking removal, etc. of the part on the ground of the instant land (this case’s principal lawsuit) by impairing the boundary of the instant land among the instant housing as the Gwangju District Court Branch Decision 2017Gadan22138.

E. On January 20, 2018, the Counterclaim removed the part of the instant housing, which was affected by the instant land, and delivered that part of the land to the Counterclaim Defendant.

Accordingly, the counterclaim Defendant withdrawn the principal lawsuit of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence of 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence of 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment of the Counterclaim Plaintiff

A. The asserted counterclaim paid on September 7, 2017 to the counterclaim Defendant KRW 2,40,000,000,000 to the part on which part of the instant housing exists (hereinafter “the instant part on land”) out of the instant land and paid the purchase price to the counterclaim.

Nevertheless, the counterclaim Defendant filed a principal suit against the counterclaim, stating that part of the instant housing existing on the ground of the instant land part, should be removed and handed over. Accordingly, the counterclaim removed the part on the ground of the instant land part among the instant housing.