2. The Defendants’ counterclaim raised in the trial against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate, and such fact-finding and judgment are acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

However, the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2 is added to the defendants' assertion raised or emphasized in the trial.

2. (1) Additional Judgment (2) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is the franchise, and the Defendants did not build, possess, or use the instant building on the said land. The stairs and access roads of this case were installed by G Co., Ltd., the former owner of the land and the building owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants did not have any duty to remove them.

The mother of the Defendants used the instant part of the building (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s building”) constructed on the land outside Seodaemun-gu Seoul and two lots (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s land”). From December 26, 1980 to October 14, 2004, for the traffic of the instant part of the said building, which was used as a runway. G Co., Ltd. constructed the Plaintiff’s building, installed the instant stairs and access roads at the place where the said alleys were removed and the said alley length died, and H used the said stairs and access roads from October 15, 2004 to October 27, 2014. From October 28, 2014 to October 28, 2014, the Defendants inherited H and also used the said part of the said building to the Defendants’ land (c).

Therefore, from December 26, 1980 to 20 years, the defendant et al. used the above (c) portion for the passage of the defendants' land (building) for the purpose of passage.

(2) (A) According to each image of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 3, the building of this case can be recognized as belonging to the defendants' building, and the stairs and access roads of this case.