1. The judgment of the first instance, including the counterclaim claim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in this court, is as follows.

1. The following facts are found to be of no dispute between the Parties, or recognized as a whole by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. On November 2, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant to allow the Defendant to use real estate for five (5) years from the land specified in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff received from the Defendant the amount of KRW 16 million from the Social Welfare Safety Fund and KRW 1 million per month from the Social Welfare Contribution Fund, and the Plaintiff returned the Social Welfare Safety Fund to the Defendant at the expiration of the period of use, and the Defendant agreed to restore the instant land to its original state and deliver it to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). (b)

On the instant land, the Defendant newly constructed a building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) on the instant land, and operated an automobile maintenance shop in the instant building after completing registration of preservation of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name on July 20, 207.

C. With respect to the instant agreement on October 14, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the purpose of use into the land and building of this case, the period of use from November 3, 201 to June 30, 2014, the Social Welfare Diplomatic Activity Fund to KRW 10 million, and the Social Welfare Diplomatic Activity Fund to KRW 1 million per month.

(hereinafter “instant amendment agreement”). D.

On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff sent an official document to the Defendant that the period of use under the instant modified agreement expires on June 30, 2014, and thus returned the intended use. Around that time, the said official document was served on the Defendant.

The defendant is operating a motor vehicle maintenance shop in the building of this case until now.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the facts of recognition as to land transfer and claim for unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff and the Defendant pursuant to the instant modified agreement.