1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) remove the buildings listed in the annex 1 list; and

B. Attached 2.

1. Determination as to the claim of this lawsuit is based on Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), Gap evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the entire film and pleading as to Gap evidence No. 2, and the plaintiff is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each land of this case"), and the defendant currently occupies each land of this case, and the defendant newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") on the ground around October 2010. Thus, the defendant has a duty to remove the building of this case and deliver each land of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of each land of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination as to a lien claim and counterclaim claim against the principal lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s assertion entered into a management consignment agreement with D, the Plaintiff’s side of March 1997, which stipulates that the amount calculated by adding the actual expenses to KRW 500,00 per month for the management of each of the instant lands shall be paid, and each of the instant lands was managed. However, as D employees, only received management expenses up to October 1997 under the name of E, but did not receive management expenses up to KRW 101,00,000 for management expenses from November 1, 1997 to August 2014, 1997, including management expenses of KRW 16,060,000 for graveyard management expenses, wages of KRW 16,000 for graveyard management expenses, and KRW 4,20,000 for the purchase of management equipment.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 121,480,000 won, such as the above management expenses, to the defendant. Since the defendant occupies each land of this case based on the above claim, the defendant's possession is lawful as possession based on the right of retention.

B. The purport of the evidence Nos. 1 2, 3, and 7 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments is followed, and E deposited KRW 4,010,00 with the Defendant’s passbook from April 23, 1997 to October 23, 197 as the Defendant’s KRW 350,000 to KRW 660,00. The land of this case had the Plaintiff’s grave, and around July 1996 to March 1, 197, it was recognized that the Plaintiff’s grave was in force, but only the above fact of recognition.