1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 1996, Plaintiff A completed each registration of ownership transfer on the building of F large 304.8 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and its ground reinforced concrete structure stude 4 floors in reinforced concrete structure. The Plaintiffs completed each registration of ownership transfer on the building of G large 339 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu on September 2, 1986 (hereinafter “G land”) and the three-story roof of the ground reinforced concrete structure.

B. On May 15, 1996, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the buildings indicated in the list of buildings attached thereto (hereinafter “instant buildings”) located on H large 86.3 square meters and its ground in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul, and its ground.

C. As the site of the instant building, the Defendants indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Form No. 1 among the F land owned by the Plaintiff A and the list No. 3. 2 of the attached Form No. 2 among G land owned by the Plaintiffs as the site of the instant building

(4) The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for removal of buildings, etc. on the grounds that the Defendants violated part of F and G land owned by the Plaintiffs. Around July 11, 2000, the above court acknowledged that part of F and G land owned by the Defendants was invaded by F and G land, etc., and accepted the Defendants’ claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent, and the Defendant’s claim for removal of the land owned by the Plaintiffs was accepted. “The Defendant’s intrusion part of the building was actually attached to both sides of the building of this case, and it was impossible to enter the second floor of the building of this case, and thus, the function and number of the building of this case was significantly reduced. After removal, the Plaintiffs were to remove the part of the building of this case, and even if the part was removed and the land was site of this case, the Plaintiffs were to remove the building site of this case, and thus, the Defendants were to have suffered undue loss and loss.