1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) at KRW 2.5 billion from Defendant B and C, in the order of the Flue-gu Seoul, 225 square meters and G large-scale 96 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land 1, 225 square meters,” and collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”) and both of the above-ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant buildings”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2014.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Defendant D as a seller broker, and Defendant E as a buyer broker.

C. The instant building was originally constructed on the land No. 1 and the land No. 2, and is registered and recorded in the registry and the building ledger as separate buildings. From May 7, 2001, Defendant B and C purchased it, without permission from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Seongdong-gu”) who is the competent administrative agency from May 7, 2001, and was used as one unit of building.

Accordingly, the head of Seongdong-gu notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “the Plaintiff should correct the illegal connection, etc. with the instant building (hereinafter “instant violation”) on three occasions, including December 9, 2014, December 24, 2014, and January 7, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5 through 8, Eul 3 evidence (including evidence with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact inquiry results to the head of Seongdong-gu Office of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant B, C, and D’s main defense

A. The instant lawsuit against the said Defendants was unlawful, since there was an agreement between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C regarding the instant sales contract, which also remains effective against Defendant D.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, following the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the instant building invadeds on adjacent land after entering into the instant sales contract.