1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal as to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Defendant F.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the submission or addition of the following paragraphs (2) of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part 2 through 9-1 in the part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, as follows: “No evidence exists to deem that the plaintiff could not rent the warehouse of this case for a period exceeding 2 months recognized as above due to the accident of this case” among the parts 2 through 9-1 in the part 2 through 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance: “No evidence exists to deem that the plaintiff failed to rent the warehouse of this case for the two months following the accident of this case” shall be deemed as follows: “No evidence No. 7, No. 10-4 through 6, No. 12-1 through 6, No. 16-1 through 18, No. 19-1 through 5, and No. 10 through 13 are sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff could not rent the warehouse of this case for a period exceeding the two months recognized as above due to the accident of this case.

(b) In the first instance judgment No. 15 of the part 15 of the judgment of the first instance, the “Evidence No. 1 to 10 of the judgment of the first instance” shall be added to “Evidence No. 19-3 to 5 of the evidence No. 19, and Evidence No. 1 to 10 of the judgment of the first instance.”

C. As between the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment Nos. 12, 3, and 4, the part between the first instance court’s first instance judgment No. 12, and the second instance judgment No. 12, 3, and 4, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s possession of the part of the “vid6” in this case is justifiable, since the Plaintiff, with the consent of the Defendant, B, etc., was engaged in cutting of the sloping surface and construction of a tool between the sloping surface and the sloping surface. However, the images of the evidence No. 5-30, 11-1

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal as to the main lawsuit and counterclaim against the defendant B, C, D, and E and the appeal against the defendant F are groundless.