All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiffs are three-story buildings on the land of the Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ leased buildings”) from E.

(2) The Defendants are directly adjacent to the building set forth in paragraph (1) and directly adjacent to the building set forth in paragraph (1) and the building on the ground of J (hereinafter “the building owned by the Defendants”). The Defendants are: (a) the building on the second floor and the building on the ground of the second floor of the land set forth in paragraph (1).

) The co-owners are co-owners (the defendants share one-half shares each.

B. B. Regarding the Plaintiff’s leased building and the Defendants’ owned building, including the extension of the instant fence, a fence was installed from around 1987 to around 1.5 meters high from the [Attachment A] part of [Attachment A] (the part remaining without collapsed on a photograph), and thereafter, the said fence was extended to approximately 1.5 meters by a arbitra (hereinafter “the extended part”) (hereinafter referred to as “the extension part”), and the existing parts and the said parts together are “the instant wall”.

(c) Around October 6, 2018, part of the extension part of the instant extension was collapsed, resulting in damage to the KNAS car owned by the Plaintiff and the contact with the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff (the form of the accident scene is as shown in the attached photo).

hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”

(ii) an event occurred. [Grounds for Recognition] A. (Evidences 1 to 6), A. (Evidences 1 to 4) (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, part of witness E’s testimony, purport of the whole pleading

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants extended the instant extension portion to the existing part of the wall of this case without any specific reinforcement in order to use the extended part as the outer wall of around 2018 without permission, and thus, the Defendants are responsible for managing the extended part of this case.