1. Attached Form 1 drawings between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), among the area of 5,966 square meters of forests and fields C in Yongnam-gun, Youngnam-gun, C, 3.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for use with the content that, among the instant land owned by the Defendant and in fact managed by the Defendant, it would be possible to use without compensation the portion of 578 square meters in the ship (a) connected in sequence 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 90, 000 square meters of the attached drawings 1, 578 square meters of the ship (hereinafter “land occupied by the Plaintiff”).

(hereinafter the above loan agreement is referred to as “the instant loan agreement”). B.

After the conclusion of the loan agreement of this case, the Plaintiff started to build a prefabricated-type housing on the land occupied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant housing”) and completed the construction of the second-story housing on the land occupied by the Plaintiff in early 2016.

C. On February 7, 2017, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail to the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff, who violated the general rental contract, gave notice of cancellation as of February 27, 2017 on the ground that there was no reason to consent to the free use of the Plaintiff’s land, and that the Plaintiff’s land was restored to its original state and delivered to the Defendant by February 20, 2017,” and that the content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the result of the surveying and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loan agreement was made for the purpose of owning the instant house, and the need for the Plaintiff’s use and profit was extinguished. In addition, the Plaintiff did not violate the instant loan agreement, and the Plaintiff did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s use and profit-making of land, and notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant loan agreement without any grounds, and demanded the Plaintiff to deliver the land occupied by

Therefore, the Plaintiff occupies the Plaintiff under the instant loan agreement with the Defendant.