1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is given the attached Form 1 of the first floor of the building indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The building No. 1 in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) is a neighborhood living facility from 1st to 2nd above ground (one store per floor), the ground 3,4, and the 5th floor is a multi-household house (2 households of 3, 4th floor, and 5th floor) under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Building Act”), and the Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the 2nd real estate listed in the attached list, which is an underground 1st floor store of the instant building (hereinafter “ Underground store”), and the Defendant is a sectional owner of the 3rd real estate listed in the attached list, which is the 1st floor store of the said building (hereinafter “1st floor store”).

B. Among the stairs of the first floor and the first floor stores of the building of this case, a toilet (in sequenced part of the ship connecting each point of the attached Form No. 1, B, C, D, and A; hereinafter “instant toilet”) with the entrance door (hereinafter “existing entrance”) was installed on the 1st floor door leading to the main entrance of the building of this case, the users of the underground stores and the first floor stores have used it.

C. On May 29, 2013, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the 1st floor store in the auction procedure, and then opened the existing entrance with locks without the consent of other sectional owners of the instant building, and opened the wall between the 1st floor store and the toilet in this case, and opened the entrance of this case at “the entrance of this case” with the part of the wall between the 1st floor store and the toilet in this case.

D. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a provisional disposition against the Defendant for the prohibition of interference with the use of the toilet of this case with the Seoul Northern District Court 2014Kahap7, and received the decision of acceptance on March 31, 2014, and removed locks installed by the Defendant at the existing entrance and used the toilet of this case. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entire purport of each of the items, as described in subparagraphs A, 1, 8, 3, and 4, as well as 1, 2, and 1,3, and 4, respectively.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The ownership of the toilet of this case.