1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Selected Party D indicated on the attached sheet No. 1,2,3,44, among the land size of E 16,414 square meters in permanent residence to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of a request for surveying and appraisal made on December 23, 2019 to the head of the permanent salary branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation (hereinafter “the Defendant”), the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party D (hereinafter “the Defendant”) are acknowledged by adding up the parts of the attached Table 1,2,3,414 square meters of E forest land owned by the Plaintiff when permanent residence owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant E”) 1,2,3,414 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff, the appraisal of the attached Table 1,2,414 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff, 9 square meters of land and the same appraisal of 9 square meters of land on board, 4,5,6,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 4.

According to this, the defendants should deliver the land in question to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The defendants' assertion (1) The defendants occupy and use the land in the dispute of this case with the plaintiff's consent.

(2) On January 2020, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit and waive the instant claim if the Defendants bear the survey costs incurred by the Plaintiff during the instant lawsuit.

Accordingly, the Defendants paid 1.5 million won to the Plaintiff on January 31, 2020.

(3) Even if the Defendants occupied and used the instant dispute land, there is no particular inconvenience to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendants with access to the instant land, so the Plaintiff’s claim violates the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights.

B. (1) On the first argument, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff consented the Defendants to occupy and use the land in the dispute of this case only with the statement of No. 1 on the health stand and No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

(2) We examine the second argument.

Section B. 2 of this title.