Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ordering payment under the below.

1. Even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court citing the judgment of the court of first instance shows each evidence submitted to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance excluding the part concerning the determination as to the counterclaim claim are justified.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant in the third seventh line of the judgment of the first instance is "the plaintiff", "the defendant in the same nine line" in the same line is "the plaintiff", "the defendant in the same line is "the plaintiff" and "N" in the same line is "M" respectively.

The following shall be added at the end of 3 lines in the judgment of the first instance:

Although the Plaintiff refers to Article 215 of the Civil Procedure Act, as seen in the above basic facts, the removal of each of the buildings of this case was made based on the judgment of Suwon District Court 2016Kadan4558. As such, Article 215(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides for the liability of a provisional execution creditor for damages of a provisional execution obligor, cannot be deemed to apply in the event that a provisional execution declaration has become invalidated.

According to the above facts, even though the Plaintiff acquired legal superficies under the customary law for each of the instant buildings with respect to the instant land owned by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay land rent to the landowner even if it is a legal superficies owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da34665, Dec. 26, 1997). Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay land rent to the Defendant from August 20, 2009 when the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land to December 1, 2017 when each of the instant buildings was removed, and it is reasonable to deem that the said land rent is KRW 24,83,318, which is equivalent to the rental fee that is not leased during the above period (the Defendant is the Plaintiff.).