1. Defendant G is the Plaintiff:

A. Within the scope of 15923052/92756455, the annexed drawing indication i among the area of 2435 square meters in Gwangju City I road 2435 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 3306 square meters in the J warehouse site in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant warehouse site”) and an owner of 3098/38093 square meters in I road (hereinafter “instant road”).

Defendant G is the owner of the share of 15923052/92756455 of the instant road, and the remaining Defendants are co-owners of the remainder of the instant road.

B. On the line that connects the warehouse site of this case and the boundary of the road of this case, separate drawings 1, and 2, iron fences are respectively installed on the line that connects the points of this case, cream, and e-mail, concrete thresholds (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant iron stuff, etc.”) in the line that connects the aforementioned drawings 3 and 5.

C. The instant iron stuffs, etc. were installed by co-owners of the 2392 square meters of K K factory site in Gwangju City, and the instant roads (I) and the land located on the south side of the instant roads and the north east of the said road (L through M, N throughO, P through Q, R, and S) are divided into the instant roads in the said K K factory site, and multiple owners, including the Defendants own and use them, and the instant roads are used for the general public’s passage, including the owners of the said land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendants other than Defendant G: The non-contentious facts; the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5; the images in Eul evidence 1-1 and 2; the appraisal result by the appraiser T; the purport of the whole pleadings; Defendant G: deemed confession

2. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the land for factory of this case or the owner of the road of this case, seeks removal of the iron rail, etc. of this case as co-owner of the road of this case and removal of interference with passage on the road of this case against the above Defendant G.

As to this, the above defendant does not dispute.

On the other hand, with regard to the scope of removal of the instant iron bars, etc., health care units, co-owners’ duty to remove the building is indivisible due to their nature, but they are obligated to remove the building within the limits of their respective shares (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da756, Jun. 24, 1980), and the Defendant.