1. All appeals filed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), C, and D’s principal lawsuit and counterclaim and Defendant I’s appeal are dismissed.

2...

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as that of the plaintiff, defendant B, C, D, and I among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Defendant B and D asserts that the Plaintiff’s seeking removal of the instant building and delivery of the instant land constitutes an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle, on the grounds that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant forest and field, suffered losses from the removal of the instant building, compared to the benefits that the Plaintiff could gain.

In order to be seen as an abuse of the right, the subjective purpose of exercising the right is to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damages on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and objectively, the exercise of the right should be deemed to be in violation of social order.

Unless such a case does not constitute an abuse of right, even though damage to the other party is significantly higher than the profit that the person who has exercised the right is entitled to receive by exercising the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of right.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da58173, Feb. 25, 2010). In this case, the Plaintiff’s seek removal of buildings and delivery of land against the Defendants, who were not entitled to co-owners of the forest of this case, constitutes abuse of rights.

It cannot be deemed that it violates the good faith principle.

Therefore, Defendant B and D’s assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the Plaintiff’s principal claim against the Defendants should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning. Defendant B, C, and D’s counterclaim claim should be dismissed on the ground of its ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.