1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the following amount ordered to be paid.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows: (a) the court filed an application under Section 17 of the fourth instance judgment; and (b) subsequent to the addition of “O. 12, 2016.” to “O. 12, 2016.” As such, this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning thereof; and (c)

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The summary of the claim in this lawsuit was that the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant and continued construction, and the Defendant did not pay the construction cost thereafter, and prepared and settled the instant payment note with respect to the construction cost performed by the Plaintiff between C and C, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost based on the payment note or the settlement money under the instant payment note.

Even if he did not have the authority to conclude a contract for construction on behalf of the defendant or to prepare a written rejection of payment on behalf of the defendant, there is a reasonable ground to believe that the plaintiff had the authority to do the above legal act on behalf of the defendant, so the defendant bears the obligation to pay the construction price according to the honorable order as an apparent representation liability under Article 126

B. (1) The gist of the counterclaim claim: (a) the removal of the building and the delivery of the site are without any title entering into the instant contract on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant; and (b) the plaintiff must verify whether the plaintiff has such title with C by means of a registration right certificate, power of attorney, certificate of seal impression, etc., but there is intention or gross negligence.

Therefore, the Defendant not only is not liable for the instant construction contract or the letter of payment, but also does not establish the apparent representation liability under Article 126 of the Civil Act. As such, the Defendant is a claim for the removal of interference based on ownership, which connects the Plaintiff with each of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the instant land.