1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that constitutes the following amount ordering payment with respect to a counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall use the part of the judgment in the first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except that the part of the "decision" in Article 9 (c) as stated in the following paragraph (3), and therefore, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant office was delivered to him/her on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant, through an execution officer on June 26, 2014, delivered the instant office to the Plaintiff. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant office and notified the Plaintiff of the completion of the restoration to the original state on June 6, 2014. Unlike the notice on the termination of the said office, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff as of June 19, 2014, on June 19, 2014, with the purport that “A business shall be carried out by June 19, 2014, and shall be removed after the restoration to the original state at the time of delivery of the instant office.”

(2) On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional injunction against the transfer of real estate possession by using the right to claim the name of the building based on ownership as the right to be preserved, and on June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional injunction against the transfer of real estate possession. An execution officer must permit the Defendant to use the pertinent office on the condition that he/she does not change the current state. An execution officer must permit the obligor to use the possession on the condition that he/she does not change the current state. The obligor shall not transfer the possession to another or change the title of possession. The enforcement officer shall not give public notice of the above purport in an appropriate manner (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Kadan407, Seoul Central District Court