1. The part concerning the claim for payment of the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 460,00 per month among the counterclaims by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed;

2...

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. Ownership of land and buildings 1) The Defendant is the building listed in attached Table 1 List 1 located on the land and its ground of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,003m2 and 1m3m2, Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building 1”).

(2) The Plaintiff owned the building indicated in attached Table 1 List 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) located on E, E, 16.9 square meters, F, 269.1 square meters, C, 181.7 square meters, and E and F, adjacent to the foregoing D (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) However, part of the building No. 1 of this case, which is the Defendant’s ownership, is 96.9 square meters (the area of the building No. 1 of this case, located in this part, is 96.9 square meters, 2, 3, 4, 5 square meters, 60.7 square meters, 4.2 square meters, and 8.5 square meters (the part is the part of the oil storage of the building No. 1 of this case, and hereinafter referred to as “the part of the land No. 1 of this case”) among the above land owned by the Plaintiff.

3) On the contrary, among the building No. 2 of this case owned by the Plaintiff, part of underground rooms and stairs among the building No. 2 of this case owned by the Defendant is 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the attached Form No. 2 of the attached Table No. 15, 11, 15, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the attached Table No. 2 of the land owned by the Defendant, which are 9.2 square meters inboard and 22, 75, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the

(4) On the other hand, both the above D, E, F, C and the above-mentioned land Nos. 1 and 2 were owned by G, who is the husband of the plaintiff, in order to liquidate the opportunity to divorce with the defendant, the reason for division of property on the same day as the plaintiff on May 28, 2003, and on the same day, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of property on May 23, 2003, respectively.

B. In order to coordinate the above-mentioned boundary intrusion problem, the Defendant, around May 2003, managed the lease deposit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the existing lessee with respect to the part on the land C of the instant building No. 1, the Plaintiff owned by the Defendant.