1. Of the instant cases, the litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C was terminated on September 29, 2017 due to the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation.

2...

1. According to the records of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, the original copy of the ruling on recommending reconciliation as of September 11, 2017 on the instant case was served on the Plaintiff on September 13, 2017, the Defendant C on September 14, 2017, and the Defendant B on September 18, 2017, and the said ruling on recommending reconciliation was filed on September 28, 2017. The Plaintiff and the Defendant C were served with the original copy of the said ruling on recommending reconciliation and did not raise an objection against the said ruling during the period of two weeks of objection. Accordingly, it is recognized that the said ruling on recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on September 29, 2017.

Therefore, among the instant cases, the litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C has been terminated on September 29, 2017 due to the conclusion of the ruling of recommending reconciliation, and thus, the declaration of termination of the lawsuit is made.

2. Lawsuits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B

A. The facts subsequent to the basic facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the results of this court’s request for surveying and appraisal to the Seoul Eastern District Land Information Corporation, and the overall purport of the pleadings.

1) On June 5, 1979, Defendant B is the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Large 50m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On September 15, 1992, the Defendants filed an application for a construction permit for the construction of a common building on the instant land and its neighboring E, and constructed a building on the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), but did not obtain the approval from the competent authority for the use of the said building.

3) Of the instant land, the instant building is located in the successive connection of each point indicated in the annexed sheet Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 11, 12, 13, 4, and 6 among the instant land. The instant building is located in the part where the boiler room, which is an accessory to the said building, connects each point of the said marks No. 14, 20, 16, 17, and 14 of the said appraisal. 4) The Plaintiff is the Seoul Eastern District Court F. 3 on the instant land.