1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court's explanation of this case: (b) the first instance court's patience of the fifth, third, and third, third, third, third, five, and the following explanation is added; and (c) the defendant added the following determination as to the arguments raised by the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination as to the contents asserted by the defendant in the trial, it is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment; and (c) thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence

(attached Form). 2. Additional Time b. Section 2. B of the Attached List.

Although a violation of subsection (1) and (2) satisfied any of the conditions, the instant conciliation clause (3) states that “where construction materials, such as steel bars, etc., raised by taking advantage of the front part of the other workshop and other workshops, inflict upon the Plaintiff’s site and building, it is interpreted that all of the conditions ① and ② are met. In the instant conciliation clause (3), the instant conciliation clause imposes 10 times or heavier penalties compared to Paragraph (2). It appears that the act of violation of Paragraph (3) is to be strictly regulated compared to that of Paragraph (2) in light of the aspects of the act of violation, the degree of infringement, and the degree of infringement, it is reasonable to interpret the language and text as above, and considering all the circumstances such as the circumstances leading to the instant conciliation, the instant conciliation clause 2-B of the attached list 2-B.

It is difficult to see that the act of violation of Paragraph (3) of this case satisfies the requirements of Paragraph (2) of this case, and it is not possible to apply mutatis mutandis the amount per each violation of Paragraph (2) by treating the same act as the case of Paragraph (2) of

3. According to the result of the Defendant’s request for appraisal of appraiser G at the trial of the Defendant’s argument, construction materials such as steel bars raised by using front parts and other workshops, including the front parts of the other workshop, and other workshops, actually interfered with the Plaintiff’s land and buildings.