Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order to pay shall be revoked.

The defendants are the defendants.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, or as to the assertion that the plaintiff is specially emphasized by this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form), and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of 3 Myeon, 2, 6 3, 4 Myeon 3, 13 Myeon 13 Myeon L, or 13 Myeon 13 Myeon L, “the representative director L of the plaintiff at the time of the representative director.”

7 The following shall be added to the "no ground for determination" column of "2. Internal Removal Works (Joint Use Part)" column of the 7.

(A) As seen earlier, the removal of the 1,2nd floor of the instant building was essential to replace the st,2nd floor of the instant building in order to replace the st,2nd floor of the instant building, because it does not constitute the act of preserving the instant building, as seen earlier.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. As to the fact that ASEAN’s removal work on the 1,200th floor of the instant building was the construction work necessary for the re-establishment of a corridor and shelter route, which is the common area used by the owner or occupant of the entire sectional ownership of the building, there is no evidence to acknowledge it) 8th page “3. External Civil Works Corporation” column “A” column “each image of evidence Nos. 21, 22, 31 through 36” among “the ground for determination” column “A” column “A”, “Woo 21, 22, 31 through 36,” and the five parallels to nine parallels as follows:

According to the evidence 9-1 and 2 of the evidence 9-2, the process, except for the “outstanding flood control” among these processes, is aimed at increasing the aesthetic view and utility value on the south of the building and can be acknowledged as constituting an improvement of the section for common use.

There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant B regarding the fact that a waterproof construction outside the outside manle constitutes a preservation act, and according to the images of the evidence No. 30, the excellent manle is waterproofed to prevent the destruction of and damage to the building of this case and to maintain the phenomenon.