Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 161 others (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Jeong Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 17, 2005

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap29185, 2003Gahap39892 decided Dec. 24, 2003

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the claim for main lawsuit is revoked, and all claims filed by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning a counterclaim shall be modified as follows:

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(A) The amount of each of the items listed in the list by the Defendants listed in the separate sheet by the Defendants No. 4 shall be paid;

(B) Of the land for a factory in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted), each point indicated in attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4 of the same ground plan, each point indicated in attached Table 3, 6, 7, and 8 of the same ground plan, the steel plates built on each line and the steel-frame structure connected each point in sequence with each point of the 1, 11, 10, 9 of the same ground plan, are removed respectively;

(C) The section of the ship connecting each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 in Annex 2 (the ground area, token, stairs, slopes, etc. of Jinju) 897.6 square meters is delivered.

B. The remainder of the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is dismissed, respectively.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder 10% shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

4. The above 2-A. The provisional execution may be effected.

1. Purport of claim

Main Office:

서울 영등포구 (이하 생략) 공장용지 11,188.1㎡를, 그 중 별지 제1-2 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 948.8㎡는 원고(반소피고, 이하 ‘원고’라고 한다)의 소유로, 같은 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈏ 부분 10,239.3㎡는 피고(반소원고, 이하 ‘피고’라고 한다)들의 공유로 분할한다.(원고는 제1심에서 별지 제1-1 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 948.8㎡는 원고의 소유로, 같은 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈏ 부분 10,239.3㎡는 피고들의 공유로 분할하여 줄 것을 구하다가 당심에서 청구취지를 위와 같이 변경하였다.)

Counterclaim:

The plaintiff, among the land for factory 11,188.1 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted), shall be removed from the defendants, each of the attached Tables 2 and 3 of the ground plans indicated in the attached Table 3, each of the iron sheets constructed on each line connecting each point of 8 and 9 with each point of 4, 5, and 6 of the same ground plans, each of the steel plates constructed on each line connected each point of 4, 5, and 6 of the attached Table 2, each of the steel plates listed in paragraph (a) (b) of the attached Table 2, and the steel fence, steel structure, joint board fence, tent, and lighting fixtures listed in the attached Table 2, 897.6 square meters listed in the attached Table 4. (c) of the above order shall be delivered to the defendants. (The defendant reduces his claim in the counterclaim)

2. Purport of appeal

The plaintiff: The part against the plaintiff concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and each of the defendants' counterclaims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The Defendants: The part concerning the main claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked; the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants shall be dismissed; the part concerning the counterclaim against the Defendants in the part concerning the Defendants shall be revoked; and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendants the amount of money set forth in attached Form 2, 3 among the 11,188.1 square meters of land for a factory in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted); each iron sheet constructed on each line connected with each point of 8,90 square meters indicated in attached Table 3; each iron sheet set forth in subparagraph (a) (b) of attached Table 2; each iron sheet set up on each line connected each point of 8,90 square meters of land for a factory in the order of 90 square meters indicated in attached Table 4; and the steel fence, steel structure, joint board fence, tent, and lighting set forth in subparagraph (c) of attached Table 2 shall be removed; and the amount of money set out in

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 13, 18, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 16 (except for each part rejected subsequent to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 13), Eul evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 6, 14, and 15, the results of the on-site inspection of the court of first instance, the results of the examination of Eul evidence Nos. 3, 8, 13, 18, 22, and Eul evidence Nos. 8, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 16, and each part of Gap evidence Nos. 12, 16, 14, 16, 15-1, 2, and 16.

A. Around 1984, Nonparty 4 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Llop Housing Development”) newly built a reinforced concrete structure of 11,188 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) and 545.64 square meters of land on the 10th floor of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) and each apartment building of reinforced concrete structure of 10 floors of 796.7 square meters of apartment, 2 through 10 stories, 778.5 square meters of 78.8 square meters of underground floor, 758.8 square meters of 10 stories of land (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) from 1984, to 38.8 square meters of land (hereinafter “the instant apartment site”) of 10 stories of reinforced concrete structure of 10 stories of 587.64 square meters of 2 to 1065.74 square meters of 10 stories of land, and 14 to 48.44 square meters of land of 442 stories of Ga and 1444.5.5 square meters of each apartment complex (hereinafter “”).

B. The Defendants: (a) as of the pertinent number of co-owners as of the date of acquisition indicated in the separate list No. 30, 10, 30, 30, 10, 200, 30, 10, 500, 200, 30, 10, 200, 50, 10, 200, 30, 30, 10, 10, 200, 10, 200, 10, 200, 10, 200, 10, 200, 20, 10, 200, 10, 200, 20, 10, 30, 70, 10, 70, 10, 200, 10, 70, 70, 10, 100, 200, 70,

다. 라이프주택개발은 위 신축 당시 별지 제1-2 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 948.8㎡(이하 이 사건 분할청구 토지부분이라고 한다.) 지상에 별지 3 평면도 기재와 같이 진주상가, 어린이 놀이터(진주상가 우측부분), 주차장(진주상가 지상부분)인 복지 및 부대시설을 설치하는 사업승인을 받아 이를 설치하였다.

D. On January 28, 1991, the Plaintiff purchased from Rad Housing Development, and completed the registration of ownership transfer after acquiring the shares (i - 10,239.21/11,188 shares, which is the object of the right to the site of Jinju apartment) from Rad Housing Development. From April 28, 197, the portion connected to each of the parts in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 among the land in this case is the portion of possession in this case (hereinafter referred to as the portion of possession in this case) 897.6 square meters from the Jinju-si and the land in this case. The portion of possession in this case includes the portion of the land in this case, which is the owner of the exclusive building and the fence in this case, without obtaining the Defendants’ consent from 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,90,10, and 111 of the area of the land in this case.

E. Current status of the occupied portion of this case before April 28, 1997

Of the possession sections of this case, the area above the Jinju is 30cm in height, 10cm in length, and 60cm in depth in the boundary line with 20cm in width, and the area above the 60cm in width was developed in the same manner as the ground surface map indication (a)-(a) and (a)-B of the attached Form 3, and in which the opening, finch finch was planted in that place, and two stairs with the finch, which were the finch in Jinju apartment, were installed in the same manner as the ground surface map indication (b)-(i) and (b)-B of the attached Table 3, but both of the stairs were installed in the area above the slope, the artificial width and number was installed, which was connected to the slope, Jinju apartment and the outer road (private distance intersection), and the parking lot was indicated as a parking lot (b)(c) and (d)-B) of the residents' parking lot as in the attached Form 3(c)(i).

(f) Costs of damage and reinstatement, such as the Plaintiff’s report;

(1) In most of the above chemical parts, most of them were removed, and the concrete was removed, and the warehouse (4.1m x 1.35m x 2.2m) was installed in the sand position panel on that part of them, and 26,413,184 won (=20,36,06 won + 5,906,80 won + 140,298 won) at the cost of repair and concrete removal.

(ii) 6,090,528 won (=5,814,694 won + 275,834 won) is required to remove and repair the same floor plan display, (b)-(i) damage stairs, and install iron bars and steel plates in that part.

(3) On the line connecting each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the same ground plan indication, the fence was installed, and the fence was damaged, as above, on the line that connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and 1,066,779 won (=79,536 + 457,752 won + 529,491 won).

(4) A steel structure, a joint board fence, and a lighting fixture were installed on the line that connects each point of 1,11,10,10 and 9.

(5) The dust room is leaving wastes, such as air conditioners, signboards, etc., on the ground part and stairs. The cost of collecting and disposing of them is required to be KRW 1,00,000.

(6) Considering the total cost of the above cost of KRW 34,570,491 (=26,413,184 + KRW 6,090,528 + KRW 1,06,779 + 1,000,000 + the relevant industrial accident insurance premium, safety management cost, other expenses, management cost, profit, value-added tax, etc., the cost of restoration would be KRW 49,597,365.

G. The Plaintiff was required by the Defendants to remove iron plates’ fences and iron plates on several occasions, and the Plaintiff was ordered by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office to take corrective measures against the said alteration of current state around July 13, 1997, around March 26, 2001, around April 9, 2001, and around May 7, 2001, to restore the said alteration to its original state. However, until October 29, 2003, each steel door installed on the same ground plan indication (c)-( automobiles) and (c)-B (s) of the same ground plan, and each iron door installed on the side of the stairs indicated in the ground plan (b)-(i) and (b)-B(s)-B, and the remainder does not remove and restore to its original state until now.

아. 이 사건 점유부분을 포함한 별지 1-1 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 948.8㎡에 대한 임료는, 1997. 4. 28.부터 1998. 4. 27.까지 사이에 월 임료 4,955,800원, 총 임료 59,469,600원이고, 1998. 4. 28.부터 1999. 4. 27.까지 사이에 월 임료 4,604,800원, 총 임료 55,257,600원이며, 1999. 4. 28.부터 2000. 4. 27.까지 사이에 월 임료 4,449,800원, 총 임료 53,397,600원이고, 2000. 4. 28.부터 2001. 4. 27.까지 사이에 월 임료 4,611,100원, 총 임료 55,333,200원이며, 2001. 4. 28.부터 2002. 4. 27.까지 사이에 월 임료 4,516,200원, 총 임료 54,194,400원이고, 2002. 4. 28.부터 2003. 4. 27.까지 사이에 월 임료 4,687,000원, 총 임료 56,244,000원이며, 2003. 4. 28.부터 2003. 7. 21.까지 사이에 월 임료 5,098,200원, 총 임료 13,978,900원이다.

I. On April 22, 2003, Defendant 5 acquired the claim for return of unjust enrichment from Nonparty 2, Defendant 16 from Nonparty 3 on June 24, 2003, Defendant 38 from Nonparty 4 on April 29, 2003, Defendant 5 from Nonparty 5 on May 30, 2003, Defendant 59 from Nonparty 7 on May 22, 2003, Defendant 68 from Nonparty 7 on June 27, 2003, and Defendant 101 from Nonparty 8 on August 11, 2003, and Defendant 109 from Nonparty 9 on April 30, 200, from Nonparty 9 on April 30, 200, and from each of this case’s acquisition date to the Plaintiff on this issue.

(j) The Plaintiff, as co-owners of the instant land, filed a claim for the partition of the instant land against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Our argument

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, as co-owners of the instant land, filed a claim for the partition of the instant land against the Defendants, who are the remaining co-owners of the instant land. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not claim the partition of the instant land beyond his/her right since they only possess the right to underground portion of the Jinju, and that the instant land is a site stipulated in the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act (hereinafter “multi-Unital Building Act”), and that the land portion of the instant claim for partition, which the Plaintiff seeks, constitutes “the site necessary for the use of Jin

(b) Markets:

(1) As to whether the Plaintiff only holds the right to underground segment of Jinju-si

The actual price owned by the plaintiff is located underground in the part of the land of this case among the land of this case, and the parking lot and green space are established in the area of the ground of Jinju apartment at the time when the plaintiff purchased Jinju apartment and Jinju Ga, as seen earlier. However, the plaintiff's right to share in the land of this case exists over the ground and underground only for the portion of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's right to share in the land of this case is not limited to the portion of the land of this case. The reason that Jinju, currently owned by the plaintiff, is located underground in the part of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's right to share is merely limited to the right that belongs to the underground part of Jinju's right to share in this case

(2) As to the prohibition of partition under Article 8 of the Aggregate Buildings Act

(A) The purport and issue of Article 8 of the Aggregate Buildings Act

Article 8 of the Multi-Family Building Act provides that "if one building which is the object of sectional ownership exists on the site, co-owner of the site shall not claim partition of the site within the extent necessary for the use of the building." On the other hand, Article 268 (1) of the Civil Act recognizes the freedom of partition of the jointly owned property. Although the co-ownership relationship under the Civil Act is understood as a temporary and provisional relationship, since the sectional ownership relation continues as long as the building exists, unlike the co-ownership relationship under the Civil Act, it is necessary to maintain the land co-ownership relation for the existence of the building. Thus, Article 8 of the Multi-Family Building Act prohibits the claim for partition of co-owned property as regards the co-owner of the site where the sectional ownership building exists in order to secure the foundation for existence of the building. The scope of the site prohibited from such a claim for partition of co-owned property should be determined by considering physical and spatial standards, the use of the building installed on the ground, the form of use of the whole site and the extent necessary for the owner or user of the building to use.

In this case, the plaintiff does not want to divide in kind and divide in kind other than the part of the land claim in this case, including the land of Jinju, which is owned by the plaintiff (the defendant does not want to divide in kind the land of this case in this case and divide in value) and the land of other part that does not include the land of Jinju, which appears to be a site necessary for the use of Jinju apartment, the issue is whether the part of the land claim in this case, including the land of Jinju, is "the land within the scope necessary for the use of Jinju apartment" under Article 8 of the Aggregate Buildings Act.

(B) Whether the land of this case can be divided

The land portion of the instant partition claim, which includes a Jinju's site, may be divided in consideration of only the location that accounts for the instant land and the Plaintiff's interest.

However, in the above basic facts, the development of a so-called off house is a facility necessary for the use of the Defendants, who are the occupants of the Jinju apartment, as well as the incidental and welfare facilities of Jinju apartment. ② The Jinju apartment is installed with the approval of the project that establishes a passage route, stairs, and fireproofs on the ground level, etc., and the plaintiff has used the above facilities before installing a steel plate wall and a steel fence as above. In particular, the stairs and slope entrance are used as a passage through a private street crossing, and the above facilities are necessary for the use of the Defendants, who are the occupants of the Jinju apartment. ② The part of the land claim for the subdivision of this case, among the annexed drawings 1-2, the distance between Jinju apartment and 1-2, and the first apartment of Jinju apartment, which are connected to each other, is considerably less than 3 meters, and there is no room to see that the portion of the land can be divided into the plaintiff's land and the defendants's land use of the land.

(C) The Plaintiff asserts that the partition of co-owned land in this case is possible pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-owned Land (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Cases Concerning the Partition”), and Articles 16(2) and 41 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”).

In this case, it is possible to divide the land which can not be divided by the method of partition of co-owned property under the Civil Act, as shown in the Act on the Ownership of Aggregate Buildings, according to the special law, which is a special law for conciliation of disputes about co-ownership or improvement of urban residential environment, and the requirements and procedures under the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas. However, in this case, it is not a claim pursuant to the requirements and procedures under the special law and the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas, and even if it is possible to partition a co-owned property under the special law, the claim of this case can not be permitted unless there is any proof that the

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. Parts of the claim for removal and delivery

(1) Without going through any consultation with the Defendants, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove each of the above facilities and deliver the portion of the possession of this case to the Plaintiff, as the Defendants sought as a preservation act on the part of this case, since the Plaintiff is obligated to remove each of the above facilities and deliver the portion of the possession of this case to the Plaintiff, in the order of each of the points listed in the 6, 7, and 8 of the above ground plans, which are attached to each line, and the steel-frame structure installed above the line connecting each point of the 1, 11, 10, and 9 of the same ground plan, and the steel-frame structure installed above the line connecting each point of the 1, 11, 10, 9.

Furthermore, the Defendants sought removal of the iron plates built on each line, which connects each point of 8, 5, and 6 of the attached Table 3’s ground plan marking 2, and 3’s each point of 8, and 9’s each point of 5, and each line of 4, 5, and 6’s each line of order, but the above part’s facilities were already removed before October 29, 2003. Thus, the Defendants’ claim for removal of the above part is without merit.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that the part of this case's removal and request for transfer of this case and the claim for return of unjust enrichment that can be seen in the subsequent order are all unjustifiable. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has a right to exclusively occupy and use the part of this case's possession on the ground of the fact that the part of the document Nos. 9 and 13 and the part of this case's possession is merely the part on the ground of Jinju's real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Accordingly, the defendants' request for extradition of this case is reasonable, and the request for removal is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

B. Part on the claim for payment of money

(1) Requests for restitution of unjust enrichment

(A) The co-owners of land may use and make profits from the entire land according to their shares, but unless a majority of shares are agreed among the co-owners with respect to the specific method of use and profit-making, part of co-owners cannot exclusively occupy and use the specific part. If a part of co-owners exclusively occupy and use the specific part, they shall be deemed to have made unjust enrichment corresponding to their shares among the other co-owners even if the specific part area is within the area corresponding to their shares ratio. However, in this case, it shall be deemed that the other co-owners are making unjust enrichment corresponding to their shares. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff used the remaining co-owners exclusively from April 28, 1997 to October 29, 203 by excluding the defendants (including the withdrawal) who are the co-owners, who are the remaining co-owners, and therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above acquisition price (including the acquisition price of co-ownership shares and the acquisition period of each claim from April 28, 1997 to October 29.

(B) Amount of unjust enrichment

① The total amount of rent from April 28, 1997 to April 27, 2003 shall be KRW 315,848,421 [including the occupation portion of this case = the total amount of rent from April 28, 1997 to April 27, 2003 33,896,400 (= KRW 59,469,600 + KRW 55,257,600 + KRW 53,397,60 + KRW 55,333,200 + KRW 54,194,40 + + KRW 56,400 + KRW 56,400 + KRW 56,546,2400] calculated by multiplying the co-ownership shares by the Defendants’ total amount of rent calculated according to the aforementioned 398,986.36.48).

② Since monthly rent between April 28, 2003 and October 29, 2003 (six months) is 4,82,628 won (i.e., 5,098,200 won x 897.6 ± 948.89), the amount calculated according to the Defendants’ respective co-ownership shares during the above period is stated in the table (B) by [Attachment 4.67/118.1] [32,185 won (=32,186 won) 】 298.6 ± 298.6 ± 296 】 298.6 】 296 】 32.6 】 295 】 196 】 295 】 3.6 】 296 】 196 】 295 】 196 3.6 】 26.5 】 1965 】 25 】

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount set forth in the [Attachment 4] List to the Defendants as unjust enrichment.

(b) Costs of reinstatement;

(A) The defendants' assertion

Under the premise that restitution costs are 50,105,869 won, the Defendants sought payment of the amount of paragraphs (c) and (c) of the attached Table 4 corresponding to the Defendants’ shares to the Plaintiff.

(b) the board;

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s change in the current state of construction of each of the above facilities without consultation with the Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s refusal to remove and restore the above facilities to its original state of 49,597,365 won is identical. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendants KRW 49,597,365 to the Defendants the amount of KRW 49,597,365 for restoration to its original state of 49,597,365 (C) [the amount of KRW 74.67/1188, 53.32/1118.1 shares of the apartment of this case, 80 shares of KRW 53.32/1118.1 shares of the Defendants, each of which holder is 80,61,691 won [the amount to the Defendants holding shares of KRW 74.67/11188.1] 361,691 won [the amount to be paid to the Defendants [the amount to be paid to the Defendants 2537.538.18.5]

Furthermore, 508,504 won (i.e., 50,105,869 won - 49,59,365 won) (i.e., 50,105,869 won) (i., 50,105,869 won - 49,365 won) (i.e., 50,105,869 won - 49,597,365 won) (i., 50,70,642 won (i.e., 50,70,642 won), which is the appraised amount of the first instance judgment, the Defendants merely deducted only 594,773 won (i., the sum of the removal cost, including steel writing, without considering the expenses, general administration cost, profit, value-added tax, etc.). Moreover, even if the removal cost cannot be included in the claim, it was calculated by including it in the expenses to be recovered.

(3) As to the plaintiff's allegation of set-off

The Plaintiff: (a) since January 1, 1991, the Defendants exclusively occupied and used 10239.21 square meters of the instant land among the instant land, such as that the Defendants could not park the Plaintiff and commercial tenants in the parking lot of Jinju apartment complex; (b) the Defendants were obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for a period from January 1, 1991 to the present day; and (c) the amount exceeds the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants set off the Defendants’ claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff; and (e) therefore, the Defendants exclusively occupied and used the said 10239.21 square meters of land for the said period as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not have any evidence to acknowledge the same differently, and there is no reason to acknowledge the same.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay each of the amounts stated in (a), (b), and (c) as stated in the [Attachment 4] List by Defendants to the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay each of the amounts stated in (e) the sum of paragraphs (e) and (c). Therefore, the above claim for the payment

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed without merit. Each of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims against the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit. Since the part of the plaintiff's claims against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is revoked, and the part of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants is partially different, and thus, it is unfair to accept part of the plaintiff's appeal and change it as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Cho Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)