1. The part concerning the claim for restoration of the principal lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 1974, the Plaintiff purchased D large 276 square meters adjacent to the instant land in Gyeyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Mayang-gu, Mayang-gu, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on April 26, 1974.

In addition, around May 31, 1975, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the said land, and part of the instant building was constructed on the ground of the land in dispute.

B. The Defendants purchased 1/2 of each of the instant shares from E and F on April 6, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 1, 2016.

After that, the Defendants newly constructed a reinforced concrete structure (refluence) concrete (refluor), roof 14th floor accommodation facilities (hereinafter “the instant aggregate building”) on the ground of the instant land, completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant aggregate building on July 26, 2017, and completed registration of site ownership on the instant land on the same day.

C. The Defendants are sectional owners holding G, H, I, and J among the instant aggregate buildings, and owned 36.1516/9 of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), appraiser K's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. We examine, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for restoration to the original state among the principal lawsuit of this case, whether the part concerning the claim for restoration to the original state is lawful

In civil procedure, the purport of the claim must be specified in detail so that the content and scope can be clearly identified.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da7090, Sept. 8, 2011). However, in the case of the main claim of this case, it cannot be deemed that the content and scope of the purport of the claim were clearly specified on the grounds that the subject, scope, content, and method of restoration are not specifically disclosed.

Therefore, this is applicable.