1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the appellate court.

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance has sufficient grounds for admitting the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on the issues, etc.).

The reasons to be stated by this court are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional or further parts, so it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. On the fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part added or added shall be as follows: (a) up to 3 to 5 pages 1 below.

The Defendants, even if they did not possess the instant real estate, or did not possess it, from October 2013, occupied the instant real estate by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the Defendants lost their possession.

Even if the Defendants occupied the instant real estate, such possession was illegal possession or the registration of the decision on commencing auction of the instant real estate was completed.

“The following is added between the 5th and 7th of the first instance judgment, and the 7th of the first instance judgment “B”.

The Defendants are “C”.

The defendants have been written in the form of "the defendants".

B. Since February 1, 2013, the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff owned the instant real estate as the owner of the instant real estate from February 1, 2013 to the date, the Defendants did not possess the instant real estate since that time.

Plaintiff

According to the statements in the certificate No. 1 and No. 2 of May 16, 2013, the supplementary intervenor, the LAB, the LAB, the LAB and the LAB, and the LAB, the Defendant, respectively, appears to be a clerical error on May 6, 2013, stated in the application for the supplementary participation of the Plaintiff’

Although there is a fact that the lien agreement has been prepared, this is simply arranged matters concerning cash payment on the premise that the supplementary intervenor possessed the real estate of this case from February 1, 2013.