1. Of the part of the main claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in the judgment of the court of first instance, order performance under the following paragraph (2).

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases being dried or added as follows. Thus, this part of the building of this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part used to be dried or added by the court of first instance, which is not more than Part 6 (B) at the bottom of Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be the same as the part below.

(B) (B) The part of the fifth floor of the instant building is recognized as having been occupied and used as the management office as it did not lease the fiveth floor of the instant building to the present day. The Defendant B paid various taxes on the instant building while managing the instant building for about 20 years, and the Plaintiff did not have any objection to the management of the instant building as seen earlier. However, even if the Plaintiff could be deemed to have entrusted the management of the instant building to the Defendant B on the ground of these circumstances, insofar as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and sought the delivery of the first floor and the fifth floor possession of the instant building and claimed that the Defendant B did not have the right to manage the instant building, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff withdrawn the entrustment of the management of the instant building to the Defendant B. Accordingly, the Defendant B did not have the right to occupy the fiveth floor of the instant building. Accordingly, the Defendant B transferred the instant building to the Plaintiff, as claimed by the Plaintiff, and is obligated to pay the charges for unjust enrichment calculated from March 31, 200 to March 31, 201.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C has occupied the 5th floor of the instant building, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C is taking advantage of and benefit from the 5th floor of the instant building only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9.