1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3.For the purposes of this Court.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following “2. height” and thus, it is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. On the fourth and third pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following marks are added.

A move-in report on November 25, 2011, the fourth fourth floor of the move-in report on November 2013, 201, the fourth floor of the moving-in report on November 11, 201, the first floor of the second floor B (P) C (P) 2, the second floor E on April 25, 2012, the third floor F (R) third floor of the move-in report on November 25, 2005, G 3rd in the third floor of the move-in report on November 03, 2010, the fourth floor of the move-in report on November 201, 201, the fourth floor of the moving-in report on November 25, 201, J 4, 202, K on May 4, 2015.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

“2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, insofar as the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, did not assert and prove the source of possessory right to the instant land of the instant building, the Defendants are obligated to withdraw from each part of possession of the instant building.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the final judgment of this case was not against the owners of the 2, 3, and 4th floor of the building of this case, and thus, Defendant Diplomatic Association and H who lawfully purchased the building of this case from the owners of the 2, 3, and 4th floor of the building of this case cannot file a request for eviction, or that the said judgment itself is unreasonable

Therefore, according to the records of Dominsa and Gap No. 3 (including the paper numbers, hereinafter the same), the contents of the final judgment of this case cannot be deemed to have established legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act in the building of this case where L is constructed.

Therefore, N, U, H, and V, which purchased 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the instant building from L, cannot be deemed to have acquired legitimate statutory superficies. Furthermore, the entries in Eul, 1, 2, 3, Eul, 1, 2, 3, 1, and 10 of Eul, Eul, and Eul, which are submitted by the Defendants, and the testimony of the witness of the party trial, are legitimate for N, U, H, and V, as to the instant land of the instant building.