1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are co-owners of the plaintiffs' land, and with respect to the plaintiff Eul's share on November 2/3, 1999, the plaintiff Eul completed each share transfer registration on December 27, 2007 with respect to the share on December 1/3, 2007, and the plaintiff C completed the share transfer registration on January 7, 2008 with respect to the share of defendant Eul's share (66.12/4354).

B. From around 30 years ago, Defendant E operated the “H” store, which is a household building constructed on the ground of Defendant D’s land with Defendant D’s consent, and around September 2003, the said store was spreaded with typhoons and reconstructed.

C. Considering the shape of the store to be reconstructed by Defendant E in the course of rebuilding, the part of the Plaintiff’s land was affected by the reconstruction as shown in the attached Table 1 appraisal drawings, and there was a problem that the said part of the store should be reconstructed. In the presence of Defendant E, a letter of the following contents (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) was drawn up between Plaintiff A and Defendant D around September 2003.

[Written] Name of this case: D) The above principal promises to return at the time you use part of the F in the Young-gu Busan City/Do (H store) in the use of your own land and prepares a letter.

except that a request for return by personal appraisal is not made, and that part of the road and parking space site, which is the site owned by the principal, corresponding to the use of the site, may be used. A

D. After that, Defendant E reconstructed the H store (hereinafter “instant store”), and Defendant E currently operates the instant store.

E. The Plaintiffs’ land and Defendant D’s land are “public facilities” as defined in Article 2 subparag. 13 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and property tax reduction benefits. The Plaintiffs’ land is a parking lot, and Defendant D’s land is being used as a road.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, appraiser I, respectively.