Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B are attached to the attached Form 436m2 of the F Cemetery in Geum-gu, Busan.

1. Map 1, 2, 3.

Facts of recognition

G [The father (the father) of the Plaintiff and Defendant B] owned the instant land and died on June 21, 1985.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). On May 25, 1992, the inheritors of the deceased, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant B prepared a written agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case on May 27, 1992 due to the inheritance by division.

Defendant B closed his business on June 10, 1989 and closed on May 23, 2008, by having the location and trade name of H (number address of the same Gu I) adjacent to the land of this case as the J.

Attached Form among the land of this case

1. On the ground of 272m2 in sequence of each point in Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 272m2, the part “A” connected to each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, the part “A” is installed with the board panel, the part

2. The part of the drawing(a) is owned by Defendant C, D, and (b) respectively by Defendant E.

The rent of the instant land is KRW 19,673,760 from January 1, 2007 to November 30, 2016, and the monthly rent is KRW 257,900, and is presumed to be the same even thereafter (hereinafter referred to as “instant rent”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, the following facts are as follows: Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1, 4, and 5; the result of the entrustment of the appraisal of rent; and the determination as to the ground for the claim of the principal claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, barring any special circumstances, the Plaintiff who is the owner of the instant land; Defendant Eul has the obligation to remove the instant building and deliver the land and pay the instant rent as compensation for damages or unjust enrichment; and Defendant C, D, and E has the obligation to withdraw from the portion possessed by each of the parties.

In this regard, Defendant D alleged that he did not occupy the building of this case through a preparatory document on November 20, 2017, but it is obvious in the entry of evidence B-1, the record, and the pleading.