1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2...

1. As to the principal claim

A. Basic facts (i.e., land D and E are divided into F around October 2003, and D’s land and land were transferred to the Defendant as well as D’s land and ground buildings (mentmentor and extract, mentor block, mentor block block, mentor block block, mentor, and string-1 floor factories). The land and E’s ground buildings [the representative H] and E’s land and E’s land and E’s land and one story (46.95 square meters) and one story and one story (47.32 square meters) of the cement block block, E’s land, and the cement block block and one story (47.32 square meters) were transferred to the Defendant.

around July 2016, the Plaintiff acquired D land and buildings, and acquired K land around November 2016.

On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit of a total floor area of 629.85 square meters (in the underground first floor, third floor, multi-family house, three households, and manufacturing establishments) on three parcels, and on August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entrusted Nonparty Co., Ltd. with new construction works, and reported the commencement of construction on August 16, 2017.

x, however, approximately 0.9 square meters of prefabricated toilets on the land owned by the Defendant, are invaded on the land owned by the Plaintiff.

【Evidence A】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17

B. (1) On August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff built the 1st underground and the 3rd ground were used as the Plaintiff’s office (factory). On August 1, 2017, the 1st and the 2nd ground were assigned to the Nonparty Company with the construction cost of the new construction work and the completion date as of January 15, 2018.

However, the Defendant did not cooperate in the boundary surveying, did not cooperate in the survey and removal of assembly-type toilets that affected the Plaintiff’s land, and rather interfered with construction works by obstructing the entry of construction vehicles, etc., and due to such unlawful obstruction of construction by the Defendant, the Defendant sought partial compensation of KRW 147,560,000, which was incurred by the Plaintiff as follows.

The plaintiff suffered losses from the loss of rent for the first floor of the building to be newly built. The plaintiff suffered losses from the loss of rent for the first floor of the building to be newly built.

The plaintiff 2,100,000 21,600,000 shall make a profit on the second floor of the building to be newly constructed.