1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,570,501 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 1, 2018 to September 19, 2018, and the following.

Basic Facts

On March 10, 2017, C, who is the Plaintiff, purchased D, 162 square meters and E cemetery 445 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 7, 2017, C, which was the Plaintiff, purchased the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in C in the future.

On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant to newly construct the instant building on the instant land at KRW 50,000,000 (i.e., 20 square x 25,000 per square x 2,500,000).

On March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff conducted a boundary survey on the instant land. Around March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Frchitectural Design Office to design the instant building.

As the construction cost of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant around May 15, 2017, and KRW 20,000,000,000, around June 20, 2017.

The Defendant started construction of the instant building from May 22, 2017 (hereinafter “instant construction”). On June 17, 2017, the Plaintiff, along with his family members, etc., planted the volume of the instant building.

On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff requested “G surveying” to conduct a boundary survey of the site of the instant building, and on June 28, 2017, from “G surveying,” the Plaintiff received the results of the survey that the instant building was part of the H ditches and I roads (hereinafter “Adjoining land”) adjacent to the Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, and the adjacent State-owned land, such as the annexed drawing.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the construction contract of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, although the defendant asserted that the construction contract of this case was made by the internship method (the execution businessman carries out all business, such as financing, design, construction, etc. for construction work), it was impossible for the defendant to obtain the approval of use because the building of this case was built by intentionally