1. The part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) among the part against the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the above part shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendants as the principal lawsuit, and Defendant Daicheon Development Company filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery and rent of the building or illegal occupation. The court of first instance partly accepted the part among the counterclaim, which ordered the performance of the portion of the delivery of the building, and dismissed all the remainder of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against each plaintiff among the main lawsuit and counterclaim, only the part of the claim for delivery of the building among the main lawsuit and counterclaim shall be subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “I reported the closure of business on June 2, 2016; the instant danran bar was suspended and left unattended while the Plaintiff was performing his/her interior works; however, the delivery to the Defendant was completed as of the date of the closing of argument in the appellate trial; the part related to the claim for delivery of the building in the judgment on the counterclaim against the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the judgment on the claim for delivery of the building during the counterclaim”) shall be respectively dismissed as of “the judgment on the claim for delivery of the building during the counterclaim”; and except for the addition of “the additional judgment on the main claim 4.” as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[However, the part concerning the claim for damages caused by unjust enrichment or illegal possession among counter-claims that are not subject to the judgment of this court]. 3. On the counter-claim, it should be recognized that Defendant Daicheon Development Company occupied the instant danran in order for the Plaintiff to have the Plaintiff deliver the instant danran. However, as of the date of the closing of argument in the trial, the Plaintiff did not occupy the instant Garan as of the date of the completion of the delivery of the instant Garan as seen earlier.