1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The request for intervention by an independent party shall be rejected;

3...

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 7, 8, Gap evidence 9-1 to 3, Gap evidence 10-1 to 3, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 14-1 to 3, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 24-1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence 29, 30, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of each appraisal by the first instance court and the appellate court appraiser C.

A shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2,306 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was constructed as an aggregate building by dividing the underground floor from the underground floor to the third floor from the underground floor in around 1980, and the fourth and fifth floors into the apartment building. However, in around 195, the repair work was performed after a fire occurred, and the structural stability and use of the said low-rises were removed from the instant commercial building, and each of the above low-rises were lost due to the removal of the walls or sectional facilities on the underground floor and the first and second floors (hereinafter “low-rise”).

B. Around January 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was an organization established with six representatives from each floor to take charge of the management affairs, etc. of the instant commercial building. Around that time, the Plaintiff determined the rules and management rules, and accordingly collected the management expenses of the instant commercial building, and accordingly, managed the instant commercial building.

C. The instant land does not have a site or a site registration of the instant commercial building, which is an aggregate building, but is owned by the owners of the instant commercial building.

Of the instant land, the portion of “B” part 19 square meters (199 square meters (hereinafter “the instant road”) connected with each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 7, and 1, among the instant land, was the land on which the Assigning Corporation was the land, and the Defendant, while occupying and managing the instant road, provided it to the general public for traffic.

The defendant denied the possession of the road of this case in the first instance court, but at least in light of the defendant's preparatory brief dated June 18, 2018, etc.