1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is attached Form 1.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the basic facts and the principal claim are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the court’s explanation on this part is based on the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance that “one law shall be lawful,” and that the court’s explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion is that the management office of this case is installed without permission in the section of exclusive ownership of the second floor.

Even without doing so, since the right holder of the building of this case explicitly or implicitly consented to the Plaintiff’s possession of the management office of this case or concluded a free loan contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff occupied the part of the management office of this case without permission.

Therefore, as co-owners of the second floor or the whole building of this case, the defendant seeks to deliver the part of the management office of this case, which the plaintiff occupied without permission, as a preservation act of the jointly owned property.

B. Determination 1) Whether the instant management office is located in the section of exclusive ownership of the second floor or a section of exclusive ownership is determined based on the time when divided ownership is established, namely, whether the entire building is a section of exclusive ownership or a section of common use. In principle, it shall be determined based on the time of registration as a sectional ownership in the building ledger of the building in question after the completion of the entire building. It shall not affect whether a section of exclusive ownership is a section of exclusive ownership or a section of common use. Whether a section of a aggregate building is provided for the public use of all or some of the sectional owners of a divided ownership or a section of common use shall be determined

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95949 Decided March 24, 2011) Nablock, each of the evidence and evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 10-1 through 4, Eul evidence 3 and 4, and the court of first instance.