1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. The remaining Defendants are individually indicated in the annexed sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. The remaining Defendants except Defendant B, who filed a claim against the remaining Defendants other than Defendant B, occupy each of their respective residential premises listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff without a justifiable title. As such, the Plaintiff has a duty to issue an order to order each of their respective residential premises listed in the separate sheet as stated in the

2. In addition to the written evidence No. 1-1, No. 3, and No. 11-1 of the claim against the defendant B, the fact that the defendant B occupies as the plaintiff-owned Y C and No. 201 is recognized.

However, in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including the provisional number), it is recognized that the judgment ordering the plaintiff to remove the building on September 12, 2013, including the above No. 201-204, No. 301-404, No. 501-504) against the plaintiff who is the owner of the land by the defendant Eul, who is the owner of the above land, is the land owned by the defendant Eul, and the removal of the total of 16 households on the ground, including the above No. 201-204, No. 201-304, No. 401-504, this Court Decision 2012Da1828, this Court Decision No. 2012, Sept. 12, 2013.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to demand a removal of the building name against the Defendant B, who is the owner of the building site. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B cannot be accepted.

3. The claim against Defendant B is without merit, and the remaining claims against the Defendants are with merit.