1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the remaining designated parties.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination as to the request for removal of sewage pipes

A. Determination as to the cause of a claim can be seen as dividing the form of possession of a road by the State or a local government into possession and possession as a de facto controlling body. Thus, according to the above legal principles and the facts acknowledged as above, if a public announcement of the recognition of routes or a road zone is determined under the Road Act, or a road is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, possession as a road management authority starting from the point of time can be recognized. Even if there is no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, if the State or a local government actually performs the reconstruction or maintenance of a road, such as expansion of a road, packing of a road, or installation of a sewerage system, and uses it for public traffic, it shall be deemed that the road is under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and it shall be deemed that the occupation as a de facto controlling body begins (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da70900, Mar. 12, 2002).

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The assertion that the sewage pipes were installed with the consent or permission of the former owner is alleged, not only the J land, K land, L land, and buildings on the land adjacent to the instant land but also the instant building.