1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court below rejected each entry or image of evidence Nos. 6 through 10, 13, and 14, which is insufficient to admit the defendant's assertion as evidence that is submitted additionally in the trial; and (b) the defendant's assertion that is emphasized or additionally claimed in the trial at the trial is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except as otherwise stated in paragraph (2) below; and (c) thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion related to the scope of the leased object (1) at the time the Defendant’s assertion was made with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff leased part of the land owned by the Plaintiff, 9,504 square meters, and the land owned by the Plaintiff in the Republic of Korea owned by Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do, in addition to the land approved for use by the head of Pyeongtaek-Gun, (hereinafter all land is located in Gyeonggi-si, and therefore, when indicating real estate, only the “D area” is to be indicated) under the photograph, and part of the land owned by Gyeonggi-do, which is located below the “E area,” to the Defendant. In full view of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 2(a) of the E Zone D (2), the aforementioned photograph’s area is the land owned by the Republic of Korea; the Plaintiff’s part of the E Zone located on the side of the road under the above photograph; the Plaintiff’s installation of the above photograph and facility under the evidence of the Plaintiff’s possession of the land within the boundary of 4,016.