1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim filed by this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of "decision on the defendant's counterclaim claim" as to the defendant's counterclaim claim filed by this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article

2. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The issue of the instant counterclaim claim is the part of the land for which the Plaintiff seeks to express his/her consent to use in the instant counterclaim (hereinafter “the part of the counterclaim land”).

A) Whether a person has a duty to consent to land use, which was sufficiently examined in the first instance trial. As such, since there was no possibility of undermining the interests of the Plaintiff’s instance, the counterclaim of this case is legitimate. 2) The former owner’s consent to land use of each of the land of this case, including the counterclaim land, was obtained, and the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea issued a building permit based on that consent, and the construction of a road in the counterclaim part among the above construction permission was included in the construction permission. This constitutes an act of designating a road by a person holding a building permit regarding the above part of the land, and the Plaintiff was well aware of all the above circumstances, and if the Plaintiff did not consent to land use, the funeral hall construction that had already been conducted by the Defendant in return to the society, economic loss, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to consent to land use in the counterclaim part.

B. A counterclaim in the appellate court’s judgment on the legitimacy of a counterclaim may be instituted in cases where there is no possibility of undermining the interests of the other party’s instance pursuant to Article 412(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, or where the other party’s consent has been

Here, “where there is no risk of undermining the interests of the other party’s instance” is the cause of the principal claim in the first instance court.