All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

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

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is acknowledged as legitimate even if the Defendants submitted to this court evidence Nos. 11 through 20 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and witness G of the court of first instance submitted by the Defendants to the court of first instance, and the testimony by the witness G of the court of first instance,

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the part used or added to 2.2 square meters,” and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. From the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part used or added “the Plaintiff and the Defendants were engaged in the instant construction work” as “the Plaintiff and the Defendants committed the instant construction work on October 22, 2018.”

From the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance, "No circumstance seems to exist that makes it possible to reduce ex officio ex officio the estimated amount specially because it is excessive."

The small portion between "However," 10 to 12 of the fifth to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be made as follows:

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above as follows, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 18, and 20, testimony and the whole purport of oral argument by witness G of the trial party, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the defendants alone is not attributable to the defendant Eul because the construction of this case has not been completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise." From the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the small portion between "However," No. 6 and "the same ..........."

According to the evidence Nos. 6, 10, and 12 of Eul, the defendant B removed tin tin tin tin tin, while performing the instant construction work, and executed steel framed reinforcement work and external poppy construction.