1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows (2) and to supplement or add it as stated in the following (3). Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article

2. The 4th 9th 9th ix "Fence of February 30, 201" shall be written with "Fence of February 2001".

Under the 4th below, six defendants shall be appointed as "the leader of the K unit in the Army belonging to the defendant".

7 Under the 7th page, "Defendants" shall be replaced by "the Chief of the KS in the Army to which the Defendant belongs".

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. On March 15, 2001, the summary of the Defendant’s argument that it is difficult to view the Defendant’s management area is the Defendant’s claim 1) that the Defendant’s main point of the argument is that the Defendant’s KK unit commander of the Army, which belongs to the Defendant, obtained permission to use and benefit from the land adjacent to the instant land, and provided the Plaintiff with the condition of re-construction and re-construction and relocation of sewage pipes and sewage pipes, and thus the Plaintiff should have re-construction or transfer the existing sewage pipes and sewage pipes on the instant land for his own convenience. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff constructed the sewage pipes and sewage pipes on the instant land. Thus, the Defendant did not manage the instant sewage pipes and sewage pipes, and thus, cannot be deemed to have the Defendant’s obligation to remove the sewage pipes and sewage pipes. 2) Even if the Plaintiff partially altered and added the existing sewage pipes and sewage pipes buried on the instant land, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant does not have any obligation to remove them merely because the Defendant did not manage them as the instant wastewater and sewage pipes.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The defendant's assertion that the Dong Sea City installed the sewage culvert and sewage culvert of this case is to solve the civil petition of the residents around the military unit.