1. Defendants and Defendant D, E, G, K, and N, equivalent to the amount of the lower judgment ordering payment.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the Defendant C, H, M,V, and the assignee for the removal of the building and delivery of the land; the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the removal of the building; the Defendants and the assignee for the removal of the building of this case; and the claim against the Defendants for the removal of the building of this case and the delivery of the land; and the claim against the Defendant V for the removal of the building of this case. The aforementioned claim for the removal of the building of this case was partly dismissed; the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal against the above part of the claim for the removal of the building of this case and the claim for the removal of unjust enrichment of this case against the Defendant V; the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal against the above part of the claim for the removal of the building of this case and the claim for the removal of unjust enrichment of this case against the Defendants and the Intervenor for the removal of the building of this case and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment of this case against the Defendant N, AO, AC, and Q.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the grounds that Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”) is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except when the court

(However, the part of the first instance court's joint Defendant J, P, Q, R, S, T, W, X, and the part of the part against the Defendants and the Intervenor regarding the removal of the building and delivery of the land that is not within the scope of the trial of this court, and the part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment against AM of the building of this case and AD which is used or added on March 1, 200, shall be added to the following subparagraphs in the first instance judgment No. 12. 4.

The Plaintiff owned the entire AC head of the instant building while Defendant V owned the entire shares of 5/9 shares in the instant building AC, which is not a majority of Defendant V’s possession as the owner of the instant building AC head.