1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a)be listed on the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

1. Basic facts

A. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor B and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on January 5, 2016.

B. From 190 to 1990, the Defendant is growing the fruit trees on the instant real estate and is currently growing them. At present, the real estate of this case is growing the total of 137 share of 78 weeks from 20 years to 78, 10 years to 27, 28 weeks from 5 years to 4 weeks from 3 years to 137 shares on the instant real estate.

In addition, the monthly rent of the instant real estate after 2016 is KRW 298,720.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, each of the appraisal entrustments to appraiser E and F, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim on the main claim, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to collect each of the aforesaid real estate from the Plaintiff, 20-year-old 78 shares, 27-old 10-old 27 shares, 28-old 28 shares, and 3-year-old 4 shares, and deliver the said real estate, and pay the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 298,720 per month from January 6, 2016 to the completion of delivery of the said real estate from the date following the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership by unjust enrichment.

(2) On January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking return of unjust enrichment from January 5, 2016 is with merit within the scope of recognition as above). Accordingly, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant property, as the fruit trees planted in the instant real estate were consistent

However, in light of the overall circumstances revealed in the purport of the entire pleadings, such as the fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s Intervenor C the money in the name of the rent each year, the Defendant cultivated the fruit trees from the planting to the present day, and the existence of ownership of the Defendant’s dead tree, no dispute exists between the parties, etc., it is deemed that the Defendant’s dead tree was in accord with the instant real estate.