1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Attached 1 drawings on the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 308.1㎡ 1 and 2.

As to the plaintiff's assertion of this safety defense, the plaintiff asserted that the building owned by the defendant is against the land owned by the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the removal of the building in violation of the contract, the claim for delivery of the land, and the claim for unjust enrichment from unauthorized occupation, the defendant agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff would not file any lawsuit against the defendant due to the land intrusion. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is against the agreement on the non-instigation of the lawsuit, and it is unlawful as it does not constitute a qualification for protection

Therefore, we examine whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to bring an action.

Facts of recognition

On December 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on December 7, 2010, “the Defendant removed the structures installed by the Defendant on the land of 308.1 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and deliver the said part of the land to the Plaintiff. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million with interest of KRW 10 million and 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.”

The Plaintiff asserted the following facts in the complaint of the instant case as the cause of the claim.

(1) The Plaintiff, as an owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 308.1㎡ (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), newly constructs a ground building on the Plaintiff’s land.

② The Defendant is the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s land”) and its ground reinforced concrete strings, accommodation facilities of five floors, and EMoel (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s building”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, which are the EMoel and neighborhood living facilities.

③ On the ground of the Plaintiff’s land, there was a building with the first underground floor and the fourth ground floor, and the said building was removed on July 20, 2010 after obtaining a construction permit on July 20, 201, by removing the said building and newly constructing the said building.

④ The Plaintiff on 2010.