1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is Seoul Seocho-gu E, Seocho-gu, Seoul. 247.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs purchased the Plaintiffs’ land and its ground buildings from G on December 15, 2001 with 1/2 shares, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 15, 2002. The Defendants shared each share of Defendant C1/3 and Defendant D2/3 shares since June 15, 2009.

B. Of the boundary between the plaintiffs' land and the defendants' land, the main part connecting each point of the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 was installed with a width of 10 cm, length of 845 cm, and cement block fence of 108 cm high (hereinafter "the wall of this case"), and the plaintiffs' land was higher than the defendants' land, and the wall of this case was installed on the pressle of about 30 to 50 cm high.

C. Since the space between the above land and the wall of this case among the plaintiffs' land is narrow, it was difficult to open and close the door of this case in order to use the wall of this case as a parking lot because it was obstructed by the fence of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs asserted that the fence of this case was constructed on the ground of the plaintiffs' land by the lawsuit of this case, and sought its removal. As a result of the survey appraisal of this court, it was revealed that the fence of this case is located on the boundary of the land.

On March 28, 2018, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiffs left part of the lower part of the wall of this case without the consent of the Defendants, and removed the upper part without the consent of the Defendants.

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 12 through 14, Eul's statements or images (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the result of the surveying and appraisal conducted by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the principal lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is presumed to be co-ownership of the plaintiffs and the defendants since the fence of this case was constructed on the boundary of land. Thus, it is alleged that the plaintiffs sought the division of the fence of this case, which is jointly owned pursuant to Article 268 of the Civil Act.