1. For the plaintiffs:

A. Defendant O, Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant L, Defendant M, Defendant M, and Defendant N are approximately 33.6 square meters and Q.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The owner of the north-gu P 333.6 square meters (hereinafter “P”) at the port of port was S, and the ownership transfer was made on August 7, 200 to the Plaintiffs, the heir due to the division of consultation, with each other, on the grounds of inheritance.

B. The owner of Q 52m2 (hereinafter “ Q”) in the North-gu Q 52m2 at the port of port was Plaintiff B, but the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said Q 2 on May 23, 2016 on the ground of donation.

C. From the end of the 1960s, the deceased U, a member of the network T, began to reside in the G and Q groundless building (hereinafter “instant building”) in the G and the G, H, and I, a non-exclusive building of P and Q ground. The deceased on June 25, 2015 while living in the instant building. The heir of T is Defendant F, G, H, and I, his spouse and children.

DefendantO leased the instant building from T around 1993 and is currently residing until now. V died on May 11, 2012 while residing in the said building, and the inheritors are Defendant J, K, L, M, and N.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2 and 3, each of the statements and images (including, if any, a serial number), the purport before oral argument

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant J, K, L, M, and N

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is to seek removal from the above building to Defendant J, K, L, M, and N, the heir of the networkV, who was the heir of the plaintiffs who resided or resided in the above building without permission and occupied P and Q as the site of the above building.

B. In light of the judgment, the above Defendants did not specifically dispute the Plaintiffs’ assertion, and thus, they can be deemed to have led to the confession of the cause of the above claim.

Therefore, the above defendants are obligated to leave the building of this case.

3. We examine the determination as to the claim against DefendantO, and the fact that the above Defendant resided in the building of this case and occupied the building site is as seen above. As such, DefendantO’s site for the building of this case.