All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On February 13, 2015, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants sought compensation for damages arising from the Defendants’ occupation of the instant telecom and site without any title as follows. A.

Defendant B’s belief that Defendant B is a legitimate lien holder in a series of processes to secure the claim for construction cost and exercise the right of retention, and it is difficult to deem that the possession of the instant telecom and site was illegal.

B. It is difficult to recognize that the Defendants knew or could have known of the damages arising out of no evidence to acknowledge the damages asserted by the Plaintiff or due to special circumstances.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s reasoning that the Defendants’ possession cannot be deemed unlawful is inappropriate; however, the lower court’s judgment that did not recognize the damages asserted by the Plaintiff did not err by mistake of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the conclusion dismissing

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.