1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall:

A. The attached Form No. 1. An appraisal of 442 square meters on the D-road in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed the facts of recognition;

A. E, the representative of Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) owns a F 5,661 square meters of land for a factory in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.; the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. owns a factory building on the above ground; the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. owns a G 1,367 square meters of land for a factory in Namyang-si, and H 5,361 square meters of land for a factory; the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. owns a factory building on the above ground; and the Defendant is the owner of a 442 square meters of land in Namyang-si, Nam-si.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs seeking delivery and return of unjust enrichment of the part of the instant land possessed by the Plaintiffs among the instant land as the District Court Decision 2009Da60039, and on November 19, 2010, upon receiving a favorable judgment against the Plaintiffs, that “the Plaintiffs deliver the part of possession among the instant land to the Defendant, and deliver each of the instant land, and pay the money calculated at the rate of KRW 30,931 per month from June 19, 2010 to June 19, 2010,” the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2010.

C. In addition, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against L, M, and N, which concluded a lease contract with Plaintiff B and used part of the instant land as an access road, seeking confirmation of the non-existence of a passage right as the District Court 201Da164555, and the judgment became final and conclusive around July 1, 201 upon winning a favorable judgment on July 1, 201.

The execution of the delivery of real estate was completed on January 9, 2012 by the above 2009da60039 ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff is the owner of a factory building located in the vicinity of the land of this case and cannot use the land of this case without using it. Thus, the appraisal of the land of this case is not more than 296 square meters in the ship which connects each point of the attached Table 1 through 5, 18 through 20, 8 through 11, 21 through 23, 13, 14, 24 through 26, and 1.