1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, indication 17,18, .

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The store No. 1 and the store No. 2 are divided stores belonging to the same aggregate building, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the store No. 2 on January 14, 199, and the Defendant acquired the ownership of the store No. 1 adjacent to the store No. 2 on December 30, 2004.

B. However, the location and size on the register of the store in subparagraph 1 is limited to the area of 40.5 square meters on the ship, which connects each point in sequence of 19,20,21,22, and 19, indicated in the attached drawings. However, the actual status is that the brick wall, which constitutes the boundary between the store in subparagraph 1 and the store in subparagraph 2, includes the area in the instant dispute as installed within the area in the instant dispute, and the area is 50 square meters in total (= 40.5 square meters in size).

C. From December 30, 2004 to the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Defendant occupied and used the part of the dispute in this case while operating a restaurant at the 1st shop.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the result of on-site verification by this court, the result of the appraiser E’s survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the brick walls installed within the part of the dispute of this case, deliver the part of the dispute of this case, and pay the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the part of the dispute of this case from December 30, 2004 until the delivery of the part of the dispute of this case is completed, unless there is a legitimate title to possess and use the part of the dispute of this case which belongs to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of unjust enrichment, it is the difference about the dispute part of this case, which was calculated at the rate of KRW 128,250 per month from December 30, 2004 to the date of the closing of argument in this case. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that it is a rent appraisal report on the "divided shop No. 4" belonging to the same aggregate building as the store No. 8 No. 2, which is the same as that of the store No. 8, is a rent appraisal report on the part of this case.