1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the claim for money is modified as follows.

Defendant C, 7,361,506, is the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the basic facts, the plaintiff's assertion, and the claim for removal of a retaining wall of this case

A. The reasoning behind the judgment of the court of first instance citing this part is that the part concerning the plaintiff among the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the judgment on the removal of a retaining wall of this case, i.e., the 3rd through 6th through 9th, i.e., “1. basic facts”, ii. the plaintiffs’ assertion, and iii., i.e., the part concerning the removal of a retaining wall of this case), i.e., the corresponding part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(b) Subsequent to the “used” in Part 4, paragraph 3, the amended portion “from October 2007 to December 12, 200.”

The first instance judgment was affirmed on August 16, 2010, the first instance judgment on August 22, 2010, which read “The appeal was dismissed on August 16, 2010.”

Under the 5th page, the term "the wall" in the 4th place shall be changed to the "the wall".

Defendant C is obligated to remove the instant stairs-type retaining wall that is likely to obstruct or interfere with the ownership of the land and building of this case, and the Defendants jointly and severally have a liability to compensate for damages of KRW 900,000 and KRW 3,300,000 already paid to repair the instant wall that was damaged due to the defect in the installation of the retaining wall of this case.”

Each "the retaining wall of this case" of heading 11 to 12 shall be considered as "the retaining wall of this case".

Under 9, each of the "B" No. 1 of the 6-5 pages is changed to "B".

C. Defendant C was poorly constructed due to the failure to properly design the instant stairs-type retaining wall, etc., and Defendant C was an illegal facility that was not permitted by the competent supervisory authority, and thus does not bring any utility to Defendant C. Thus, it does not correspond to the land of this case.