1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The defendants' appeal against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

1. We examine ex officio whether the appeal by the Defendants against the Plaintiff is lawful, and the Plaintiff sought withdrawal from each building stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendants in the first instance trial, but all of the claims were dismissed. Since the Defendants won the entire appeal against the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, the appeal by the Defendants against the Plaintiff is unlawful as there is no benefit of objection.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. Determination on the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. 1) On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) is deemed to be each of the instant land.

When land is individually named, "the land of this case" shall be referred to in the sequence of the attached list.

(2) On November 30, 2016, 201, the Plaintiff’s heir succeeded to each of the instant lands and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant lands, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s heir completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant lands. The trust contract with the Plaintiff’s heir was concluded with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s heir succeeded completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant lands under the same name on the same day.

3) Co-Defendant 1 in the first instance trial owned each of the instant land during the period from June 3, 1997 to June 17, 2002. From June 3, 1997, the Defendant constructed a prefabricated-type panel of (A) on the ground of No. 1 in the instant land connected 39 square meters in sequence, among the land No. 1 in the instant case, and a prefabricated-type panel of (2), 2, 3, 4, and 1 in order to connect each of the points indicated in the attached drawings No. 2 in the attached drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in the instant case among the land No. 2 in the instant case. 4) The Defendants each constructed a prefabricated-type panel of (c) on the ground of No. 104 square meters in order to connect each point of (a), 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 of the same drawings.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.