1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the Plaintiff’s succeeding Defendant on the annexed map 1. The annexed map 2,464 square meters of forests and fields D in Seocho-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) purchased D forest land of 2,464 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from his/her clan (hereinafter “non-permanent clan”) in his/her own Seocho-si from his/her clan on September 27, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of such purchase.

B. On May 10, 2018, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day after being entrusted with the instant land by the Plaintiff (Withdrawal).

Accordingly, the intervenor succeeded to the lawsuit of this case, and the plaintiff (ex officio) withdrawn from the lawsuit of this case with the consent of the defendant.

C. The Defendant owns a lower-rise house (hereinafter “the instant building”) which is a building not registered on the ground, in which part 31 square meters (hereinafter “(a)”) of the portion (i) in the ship (hereinafter “land”) connected with each point of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant land are located.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of an appraisal commission to the North Korean Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the Intervenor’s principal claim, even if the grounds for termination of the trust have occurred, such as the termination of the trust contract concluded between the Plaintiff (ex officio) and the Intervenor, the Intervenor is merely obligated to transfer the trust property, including the instant land, to the Plaintiff (ex officio), and the trust property cannot be naturally returned to or succeeded to the Plaintiff (ex officio).

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da62119 delivered on October 14, 1994, etc.). In the case of an intervenor, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver (a) the land to the intervenor.

In regard to this, the defendant set up a defense that he exercised the right to demand the purchase of the building of this case, but the defendant's above defense cannot be accepted as seen in the following 3.

Accordingly, the defendant's defense is the same.