1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) the attached drawings indication 1, 2, 3, 4.

Order 1-A

The facts that the real estate stated in paragraph (1) is owned by the Plaintiff, the fact that the Defendant occupied the said real estate from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, and the fact that the amount of unjust enrichment from the possession of the said real estate from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015 is 3,860,940, or that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleadings is recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of unjust enrichment was confessioned on the date of the first pleading on January 17, 2017, which was stated on the date of the second pleading on January 16, 2017, and that the amount of unjust enrichment was unjustifiable and that the confession was revoked. Thus, the confession in court is a statement of fact unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations by the other party on the date of pleading or the date of preparatory pleading, and once the confession in court is duly revoked, the court is bound by the evidence unless it is lawfully revoked. Thus, the court cannot recognize the facts inconsistent with the confession established on the facts without dispute between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu804, Oct. 24, 198; 2009Da3804, Oct. 24, 2008). The defendant's assertion that the confession in question was proven due to mistake other than that the confession in question goes against the truth and that the confession was proven contrary to the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200014Da1384,654.

Rather, the Plaintiff calculated by calculating the amount of unjust enrichment against the Defendant prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, in other words, the circumstances acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 4 through 7.