1. According to the expansion of the plaintiffs' claims in this court, the defendants jointly and severally owned by the plaintiffs 158,840,000 won.

1. Scope of trial of this court after remand;

A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiffs sought payment of “the difference between market price in the case of operating the entire real estate of this case as the previous public notice telecom, and the market price in the case of operating the parts of the 2 and 3 floors of the instant real estate as the reading room.” The first instance court accepted the part seeking damages equivalent to the difference between market price and dismissed the claim for consolation money.

B. The Defendants appealed against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs, instead of withdrawing the portion claiming consolation money before remanding, extended the purport of the claim by adding to the part claiming compensation equivalent to the construction cost incurred by the Plaintiffs to change and repair the instant real estate in a lawful form.

Before remanding, this Court dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims extended by this Court prior to the Defendants' appeal and remand.

C. The plaintiffs appealed against the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment before remand, and the defendants appealed against the defendants. The judgment of remand reversed the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment before remand and remanded this part of the case to this court. The defendants' incidental appeal was dismissed.

Therefore, since the remainder except for the part on the claim for damages equivalent to the construction cost added by the court before the remanding by the plaintiffs, the scope of this court's judgment after remand is limited to "the part on the claim for damages equivalent to the construction cost incurred to alter and repair the real estate in a legitimate form" (hereinafter "the claim for extension of this case").

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the conclusion, is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the determination of partial dismissal as prescribed in paragraph (3) and the additional determination as to the instant extension claim as prescribed in paragraph (4).