1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the statements and images of the evidence Nos. 3 through 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance are not sufficient evidence to support the defendants' assertion. The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "The rent for the building No. 4 of this case among the buildings No. 4 of this case is changed to "the rent for the part concerning the dispute No. 4 of this case among the buildings No. 3 of this case", and that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment No. 2 below. 2.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the building No. D of this case had the shape that seems to be against the rectangular sense, and thus, it is easy to use all the parts of the building No. D of this case, while the building No. h of this case does not seem to be against the left-hand upper part of the building No. 3, and since it is difficult to utilize all the parts since the part No. 1 among the annexed drawings No. 3 also becomes a rectangular figure, the above part No. 1 of the building at the time of the sale of the building of this case was a common passage. Accordingly, the construction of this case and the boundary of the building No. h of this case were determined as the line that connects the parts No. H of this case with the above part No. 17 and No. 3 of the annexed drawings No. 2.

However, the current status of the building that was referred by the appraiser M of the first instance trial for the determination of the above boundary at the time of the survey and appraisal is not not a drawing at the time of sale reflecting the above boundary, but a new drawing was made around March 2009 and was submitted to the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office to reflect the shape and purpose of the above part of “A”.

Therefore, the appraisal result of the appraiser M of the first instance court is not reflected in the boundary at the time of sale, and it cannot be determined whether the boundary has been invaded according to the result of the appraisal above.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

B. The purport of the entire pleadings is the evidence as seen earlier.