1. The counterclaim Defendant:

A. Of the 499 square meters in Gyeongguldong-gun, (1) [Attachment 1] 2, 3.

1. Basic facts

A. The 499m2 is owned by the Counterclaim Plaintiff, and the Counterclaim Defendant is the owner of the said land. Of the above land, the Counterclaim Defendant is the Counterclaim Defendant No. 1.

The part as described in paragraph (2) (hereinafter “instant land”) has been occupied from June 12, 2006 to June, 2006, and it is ordered as per Disposition 1-A of the said land.

The fence (hereinafter referred to as “the fence of this case”) was installed in each part of the land set forth in paragraph (1).

B. The rent of the instant land is KRW 129,024 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 1 to 6 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to remove the fence of this case to the counterclaim, deliver the land of this case to the counterclaim, and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of the rent of this case to KRW 129,024 per month from June 12, 2006, which is the starting date of possession of the land of this case to the date of delivery of the land of this case or the date of loss of the ownership of this case to the date of loss of ownership of this case by the counterclaim Defendant.

As to this, the counterclaim Defendant alleged that the counterclaim sold the instant land to D around September 30, 1995, and that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land again from D on May 20, 2006, and thus, the counterclaim Defendant cannot respond to the counterclaim claim by the counterclaim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument by the counterclaim Defendant. Thus, the counterclaim Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the counterclaim claim of the counterclaim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.