1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 10,632,188 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related expenses from April 25, 2017 to July 21, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 37/48 shares among 159 square meters in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant is the owner of C forest land, E forest land, 158 square meters, and 325 square meters in F forest land, which are immediately adjacent to the above site.

B. The Guro-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City is divided into C forest land of 239 square meters. The above land owned by the Defendant is divided into the land of 239 square meters in the above C forest land on January 19, 2015.

C. The said G forest was owned by the Defendant’s representative director since April 11, 1985. On November 3, 2014, the said G forest was registered with respect to the ownership transfer of 139 square meters of C forest land prior to the said subdivision under the Defendant’s name.

Plaintiff

The house owned by the owner (hereinafter referred to as the "house of this case") was constructed on the G forest land above the D site and the G forest land.

As the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant housing site, etc. among the said G forest land, H was rendered a favorable judgment from the said court on December 3, 1999 by filing a lawsuit for the removal of buildings and the transfer of land against the Plaintiff as Seoul District Court Branch 99Da31869.

E. In addition, H filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant housing site, etc. among the I Forest land owned by the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap84827 (the land divided from the G Forest, which was divided into the said G Forest, and the said C Forest land was converted from the said I Forest to July 22, 201) 86 square meters prior to the said subdivision.

In the above claim for return of unjust enrichment, conciliation was concluded on December 2, 2005 (hereinafter the instant conciliation), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 38 million to H as unjust enrichment by March 3, 2006, following the instant conciliation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 through 10, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion intends to construct a road of eight meters wide on the above E forest and the above F forest, and the retaining wall is located on the part of abutting on the boundary of the said road site after the said partition.