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

(a) remove the buildings listed in separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the land listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) from D and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on October 20, 2017.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the attached list on the instant land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”).

C. Meanwhile, on January 11, 2018, the Defendant leased the instant building to E with a deposit of KRW 24,00,000, and the period from February 1, 2018 to January 31, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant owned the instant building without the source of possessory right to the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant for reimbursement of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 10, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said land.

B. Since the Defendant’s assertion that the instant land was the owner of the instant land with H’s consent, the Defendant paid the instant land rent to H every year after construction of the instant land with H’s consent, and at the time there was a lease agreement between the parties on the instant land.

Since then, the defendant succeeded to the tenant status from G and paid rent to H, and the plaintiff succeeded to the tenant status from H through I as his heir.

Therefore, the defendant has a legitimate possessory right over the land of this case as a lessee.

In addition, since the Defendant performed the repair work in consideration of the cost of the instant building and the objective value of the instant building has increased accordingly, the Defendant may exercise the right of retention on the instant building based on the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs.

Furthermore, the Defendant is a lessee of the instant land.