1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the 3rd floor store in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and Seogu, H Y Y Y Y, the 2nd floor building, and the 3rd floor store in mentorry, and Plaintiff B is the owner of the 1st unit building in Y Y and J Y Y Y, and Plaintiff C is the owner of the 1st unit building in K ground, the 1st unit building in Y Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 1st unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 3th unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, the 2nd unit building in Y, and the 3th unit building in YY Y Y

(hereinafter referred to as the “each building of this case” is added to each building owned by the Plaintiffs.

On November 1, 2016, each of the instant buildings owned by the Plaintiffs, on the grounds that: (a) the Defendant: (b) imposed each of the instant buildings on the attached Form No. 18 square meters (Plaintiff A), 37 square meters (Plaintiff B), 19 square meters (Plaintiff C); (b) 40 square meters (Plaintiff D); and (c) 61 square meters (Plaintiff E); (b) five square meters (Plaintiff F) out of 10 square meters of T road; and (c) 56 square meters of 86 square meters of U road (Plaintiff G) in the attached Form No. 449 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the roads of this case” in combination with each of the above roads possessed by the plaintiffs). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-7, Gap evidence 1-3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 7, Gap evidence 6-1 through 5, Eul evidence 1-2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs are seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case and confirmation of invalidity as preliminary for the following reasons.

1) Since the Plaintiffs did not have occupied and used each of the instant roads, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful. 2) Each of the instant buildings invaded each of the instant roads.

Even in this case.