1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the first instance is as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance, emphasizing or adding the defendant in the trial, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing the summary of the judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Part 14, "Plaintiffs" in Part 21 shall be added to "Plaintiffs".

Part 16, "522 square meters" in Part 7 shall be added to "52 square meters".

The summary of the defendant's assertion for further determination (b), (d), (e), (7) facilities are installed by the defendant, but have already been delivered to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant does not have a duty to remove each of the above facilities and deliver part of the land corresponding to each of the above sites, and there is no obligation to return unjust enrichment due to the failure

(1) (1). (8). (8), (9), and (1) facilities are installed by the Plaintiff, not by the Defendant.

Although the defendant's living goods are stored in the facility, the situation where the defendant reported the damage has not been resolved.

The site for each of the above facilities, excluding the site for the facility, is not occupied by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant does not have a duty to remove each of the above facilities and deliver part of the land corresponding to each of the above sites, and there is no obligation to return unjust enrichment due to the failure

(2) The plaintiffs applied for permission for the permission of sports facilities to both viewing and viewing that the defendant's illegal operation of field experience is likely to be discovered, thereby obstructing the defendant from using the land used for the field experience, thereby causing damage equivalent to KRW 54,717,792 to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for removal of each facility, delivery of the site and return of unjust enrichment should be dismissed.

(3) Determination of the argument No. 1 in the sale is as follows.