1. The Defendants’ respective points are indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 212.5m2 in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, respectively, to each Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/10 shares out of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-212.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 3, 2009, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the shares of Defendant B 9/12, and Defendant C with respect to shares of 3/12, among the buildings listed in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E large-scale 128.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and the attached list on its ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Part of the instant building is installed on the ground level of 3.5 square meters inboard (A) which connects each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1 in sequence among the instant land, in which part of the instant building was invaded with the instant land, and is composed of fences, stairs, and grads.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to remove the fences, stairs, and capitals installed on the ground part of the land of this case on each of the co-owners of the land of this case and deliver the part of the land to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendants' assertion 1) The former owner of the land of this case and the former owner of the adjoining land of this case newly constructed a building on their own ground, and they implicitly agreed on the boundary of the land as included in the adjoining land of this case, and the plaintiff and the defendants succeeded to such agreement as they are, therefore, the claim of this case is unjustifiable. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 are not sufficient to recognize the existence of such agreement, and even if there was such agreement between the former owner of the land of this case, the plaintiff could accept it as it is.

or the Plaintiff’s agreement.