1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court was neglected.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The defendant's assertion emphasized or newly presented by this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added between 3rd and 15th of the first instance judgment:

A person shall be appointed.

C. At present, the Plaintiff, P, and Q shared shares 1/3 of the instant land, and multi-household houses on the ground of the instant land are owned by the Defendant (instant building, R), P (S), and Q (T) for each floor.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The first instance court’s determination on unjust enrichment on the land of this case is excessive in light of the appraisal results in the relevant case of neighboring land, etc.

(2) Of the instant multi-household housing on the ground, the exclusive area occupied and used by the Defendant, independent and exclusive, is merely 1/3 of the three floors, and only 1/3 of the three floors, the land rent that the Defendant has to pay should be limited to 1/3.

B. (1) Determination

(1) As to the assertion of paragraph (1), the first instance court’s determination on the scope of unjust enrichment was made by adopting the result of appraiser K’s appraisal, and the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless there exist significant errors, such as the method of appraisal, etc. is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da234217, Sept. 7, 2017). The appraisal method, etc. of the instant land is contrary to the empirical rule only by comparing the appraisal result with the appraisal result of neighboring land.