1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party E.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case in this case is "building" of the third instance judgment from "Seoul Gwanak-gu, Seoul" of the first instance judgment to "Seoul Special Metropolitan City" of the first instance judgment.

The part up to “the instant building” is solided as “the instant building,” and the part between the 1st to 17th on the same side is written “B.”

The judgment on the request for removal is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts used as "the part of 2. Height" below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. (1) The plaintiffs extended the bend part of the building of this case without permission after approval for the use of the building of this case. Since the plaintiffs suffered from infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, economic loss, infringement of health, and mental harm due to the construction of the building of this case and the extension of the building of this case without permission, the plaintiffs' claims for removal of interference based on ownership pursuant to Article 214 of the Civil Code, and the purport of the above claims and appeal among the buildings of this case, are different.

The claim asserts that each part of the paragraph is to be removed.

Sheet, first of all, the purport of the above claim and appeal among Nos. 401, 403, 501, and 503 of the instant building are different.

In principle, the removal of a building constitutes a final disposition of ownership, and in principle, the right to remove the building only to the owner of the building (in principle, the title holder in the Civil Code).

As an exception, the Defendants have the right to remove and dispose of the buildings in possession within the scope of their rights, such as purchasing and possessing the buildings from the former owner, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da61521, Jan. 24, 2003; 2007Da52706, Dec. 24, 2008); and the Defendants from February 10, 2014 to October 2014.