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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 2013, the Plaintiff inherited shares 1,576.4/1,626 (hereinafter “instant land shares”) out of the 1,626m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) of the 1,626m2 from the previous owner and the son M, the former owner and the son-child M (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From among the land in this case, the portion (E) in the ship connected each point of 24, 12, 13, 23, and 24 in sequence with each point of 127 square meters and 26, 10, 11, 25, and 26 of the same map, among the land in this case, connected each point of 134 square meters and 27, 9, 10, 26, and 27 of the same map, the portion (E) in the ship connected each point of 130 square meters and 21, 16, 17, 20, and 21 of the same map are annexed each point of 110 square meters and 20, 17, 18, 19, 200 square meters, and each point of 202 square meters and 134 square meters, 213, 213, 2214, 225, and 21.

C. Defendant B occupies and uses each vinyl house on the ground of the above (g), Defendant C, and J, respectively, as a residence, respectively, on the ground of the above (f) and the above (e), Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, and K, and each vinyl house on the ground of the above (f) and (e).

[Ground for recognition] The remaining Defendants except Defendant G: The facts that there is no dispute, the entry of Party A’s evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole video and oral argument of Party A’s evidence 3-1 and Party A’s evidence 3-2

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged Defendants resided in each of the relevant vinyls installed on the instant land without any title and occupied the relevant site. Even if the Defendants transferred each of the instant vinyls from N andO, N andO merely leased the instant land from N andO, and they cannot oppose the Plaintiff on the ground of sub-lease since they sub-leaseed each of the relevant sites to the Defendants without obtaining M’s consent or consent.