1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the cases in which the six pages 3 through 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance are applied as follows, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] 2) The Defendant asserts as follows. ① Plaintiff B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the part of (B) part of the instant land connected with each point of 8,9,6,7, and 8 in sequence, among the instant land, to remove facilities and to transfer the said part of the said land. The Plaintiffs may be deemed to have allowed the Defendant to install signboards, water meters, etc. As such, the instant lawsuit is inconsistent with the principle of trust and good faith. ② The Plaintiff’s damage to the existing drainage pipe of the instant building owned by the Defendant while constructing a new building on the instant land was caused by the Plaintiff’s damage of the existing drainage pipe of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s order connects each point of 10,11, and 10 of the annexed drawings among the instant land (hereinafter “instant drainage pipe”).

In light of the fact that Eul was established and the above existing drainage pipe did not intrude the plaintiffs' land, the defendant has no obligation to remove the drainage pipe of this case.

③ Since the drainage pipes of this case were extremely part of the drainage pipes of the building owned by the Defendant hospital, they were located on the boundary line between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the claim for removal of this case constitutes abuse of rights.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion as to the establishment process of the drainage pipe of this case, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs' claim is against the principle of good faith or constitutes abuse of rights.

Therefore, all of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiffs' conclusion is that of this case.