1. The defendant shall be the single floor of the P, E, and F ground assembly type, and the scopical steel board roof to the plaintiffs in official city.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-4, 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of 3/7 shares in the land of this case among the land of this case and 2/7 shares in the land of this case, and the Defendant is the owner of Da, E, F, F ground assembly type and 399m2 (hereinafter “the building of this case”).

According to the above facts, the defendant owned the building of this case constructed on the land of this case, and possessed the building of this case and interfered with its ownership, barring any special circumstances, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land to the plaintiffs who are entitled to each act of preserving the jointly owned property as part of co-owners of the land of this case.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant appears to have an intention to acquire ownership rather than wanting to remove the instant building for the continuous operation of a specialized HH driving school in the instant land and the instant building, etc. on the relationship with the Plaintiffs. In fact, while seeking removal of the instant building against the Defendant, the Defendant did not take any legal measures against the said private teaching institute, which is an occupant of the instant building, while seeking removal of the instant building. Accordingly, the instant building continues to exist.

Even if the damages suffered by the plaintiffs are insignificant or nonexistent, while the defendant should pay considerable expenses to remove the building of this case, so the plaintiff's claim for removal of the building of this case against the defendant constitutes abuse of rights.