1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's appeal and the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim that are changed to exchange in the trial.

1. The first instance court, which was subject to the trial of the party, accepted only the principal lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment among the counter-performance claims, such as the confirmation of boundaries between the real estate Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the return of unjust enrichment, and the installation of the Defendant’s fence, and dismissed all the remaining principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim.

However, since only the defendant appealed and changed the counterclaim in exchange as stated in the purport of the claim, only the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the claim for the changed counterclaim (the claim for damages caused by illegal act) are subject to the judgment of the court.

2. The reasons for the explanation on this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. basic facts), and thus, they shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reasoning for the statement on this part of the judgment on the claim for unjust enrichment (the claim for return of unjust enrichment) is as follows: “The sum of the rent to July 24, 2015 is the amount equivalent to the rent from July 24, 2015” of the 13th judgment of the court of first instance; “The sum of the rent from July 24, 2015 is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment from the main lawsuit) except for the addition of the following in the 14th judgment below; thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As to this, the Defendant, who is the former owner of the instant building, was granted the right to use the instant building from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant also acquired the status of the said right to use the instant building from F while acquiring the instant building from F. Therefore, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that F was granted the right of free use for the part that F was invaded by the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 16, 18, and there is no other evidence.

Even if F was granted the right of free use for the part that was invaded by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant acquired the instant building from F while taking over it from F.