A. With respect to F.F. 354 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), each of the Plaintiffs owns 30/107 equity shares, and G owns 47/107 equity shares, respectively.

B. Around September 1985, the network H purchased 203 square meters of the ground-story roof building (hereinafter “instant building”) from I in sequence connecting each point of the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 among the instant land from I.D.

C. The network H died, and the Defendants inherited the network H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the building of this case infringes on the plaintiffs' co-owned land, the defendants are obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the site to the plaintiffs, co-owners of the land exercising the right to claim removal of interference based on ownership unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendants alleged that the land of this case was owned by another sectional owner, not the Plaintiff, on the premise that the land of this case was in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, but there is no evidence to deem that the land of this case was in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship only with the statement of No. 1.

In addition, the Defendants asserted that there was a title to possess the instant land since they permanently approved the use of the instant land from G, one of the co-owners of the instant land, but the co-owners’ share in G related to the instant land is 47/107 as seen earlier. Even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendants, permanently consented to the use of the instant land from G, such circumstance alone does not constitute a defense against the Plaintiffs, who are the majority right holder of the jointly owned property, even if they were to have obtained consent from G for the use of the instant land. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion

3. Thus, the plaintiffs' defendants are the defendants.