1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the attached Form No. 9, 10, 11, 12, among the 1,835 square meters of forest E in Gangseo-si, Gangseo-si, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs: (a) divided part of the part of the 6,050 square meters of the 6,050 square meters of Gangwon-si forest E (Seoul forest land into 4,215 square meters on March 5, 2018; and (b) provided the instant forest as a site for inspection; and (c) Defendant C decided to build H (hereinafter “instant inspection”) in the said forest.

B. The Defendants installed two containers (hereinafter “instant container”) in the attached Form Nos. (a) and (b) of the said forest land in order to reside during the construction of a new temple, and used them as temporary inspection, dwelling, and warehouse facilities.

C. On March 2018, Plaintiff A and Defendant C filed an application for preliminary registration with the International Religious Organization for the instant temple, and submitted a certificate of property donation with the purport to donate the instant forest to the instant temple to the JA religious Organization. On May 23, 2018, Plaintiff A asked Plaintiff A to withdraw his/her intention of donation to the JA. On May 24, 2018, J returned documents related to preliminary registration of inspection, including the said certificate of donation, to Defendant C.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8 (Partial number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2) Each entry in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each video of Gap evidence No. 2, of this Court's entrustment of appraisal to Gangnam branch office of the Gangwon District Headquarters of the Korea Land and Information Corporation, and the inquiry results of J company, the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole]

2. Defendant D’s defense as to the previous merits of Defendant D had no standing to be the defendant since it was not directly related to the plaintiffs’ claim in the main lawsuit. However, in a performance lawsuit, the defendant standing to be the defendant in the lawsuit is nominal by the plaintiff’s claim itself, and the decision was absorbed into the judgment whether the claim is proper, and thus, the person alleged as the obligor is the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). Thus, Defendant D’s defense is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for removal and delivery in the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff A’s assertion of the parties to the instant forest contract.