1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s counterclaim against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A, B, and D possess some co-ownership shares of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fro 194m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”). The Plaintiffs newly built five-story multi-household houses and Class I neighborhood living facilities on the ground around 2012.

The Defendant is the owner of a house on the ground completed on May 24, 1983, which is H 186 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. On the line that connects each point of 7,15, and 3 of the annexed drawings among G land, a fence owned by the Nonparty exists, and on the underground line that connects each point of 14,15, and 3 of the annexed drawings among the plaintiffs' land, a plastic sewage pipe with a diameter of 100 meters connected from the defendant's land (hereinafter "the part of the instant sewage pipe") is laid underground, and on the underground road that connects each point of 7,1, and 6 of the annexed drawings in sequence, a public sewage culvert is laid underground in the line that connects each point of 7,1, and 6 of the annexed drawings.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3 (or no less than number omitted), Eul 1-2, 14, 19, appraiser I, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Since the part of the instant sewage pipe owned by the Defendant is located in the Plaintiffs’ assertion land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the said sewage pipe part to the Plaintiffs seeking as an act of preserving the jointly owned property.

B. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the part of the instant sewage pipe was owned by the defendant. Rather, according to the evidence No. 5, the fact that J, who performed new construction of the building in the plaintiffs' land, newly purchased pipes and installed the part of the instant sewage pipe. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. (1) The Defendant’s claim for restoration of sewage pipes (1) installed the Defendant’s claim on the line, which connects each point of the attached Form 7 and 8 around 1983, along with the Defendant’s claim for construction of a new building in the land of the Plaintiffs, in sequence.