1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached Form No. 7,8,9,10,700 square meters to Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff C) and the attached Form No. 7,8,9,10,7.

1. Basic facts

A. Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Egi-gu (hereinafter “instant site”) is adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiffs, each of which owns 1/2 shares, and is the F 447 square meters owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. In and around the boundary of the instant site and the land owned by the Defendant, there exists a stone retaining wall with a height of about four meters (hereinafter “the instant retaining wall”). Some of the retaining wall of this case is not in fact located within the boundary of the land, but in and around the instant site, the instant site was invaded. Of the instant site, there is a line connecting 8,9,10.0 to the line connecting 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.

C. Defendant C, while owning a main 2-story and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “Defendant-owned building”) on the land owned by the Defendant, owns part of the instant site, namely, the land owned by the Defendant, which is the boundary of the retaining wall as well as the land owned by the Defendant, that is, the part of the instant site, namely, the number of square meters in the line that connects each point of 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11 of the attached drawings, and the part of the “cock in the line” portion (hereinafter “instant dispute land”), which connects each point of 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 3, 4, 5, and 11 of the same drawings.

Defendant D, who leased part of the building owned by the Defendant C and operated the restaurant, installed and occupied the facilities emitting postponement on the land of the instant dispute.

[Ground for Recognition] A: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 1-2, results of commission of surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs' assertion (the main claim) since acquiring the land owned by the defendant in 1999, the defendant C occupied the land in this case, which is the plaintiffs' possession without permission, and the defendant D operated its restaurant business.