1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and its ground building (hereinafter “Gu building”). The Plaintiffs removed the Gu building and newly constructed a multi-family housing of five stories size on the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant housing”) and completed the registration of ownership preservation on November 22, 2016.

B. In the process of constructing the instant house, Plaintiff A filed an application with the Defendant for the removal of the instant electric poles and the installation of new electric poles around July 21, 2016, as the instant electric owner established on the instant road in front of the instant house interfered with the entry into and exit into the parking lot of the instant house.

C. Around that time, the Defendant promised the Plaintiff A to remove the instant electric poles and install a new electric poles, subject to consultation with neighboring residents.

After that, on November 21, 2016, Plaintiff A notified the Defendant that consultation with neighboring residents had been completed, and accordingly, the Defendant installed new poles in the part indicated in the attached drawing(b) of the instant road on November 24, 2016.

E. However, neighboring residents did not agree with Plaintiff A on November 28, 2016, and they opposed to the new installation of a electric poles. Ultimately, the Defendant removed the new electric poles around March 2, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the former owner of this case interferes with the exercise of ownership of the plaintiff's land and the housing of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs asserted that the former owner of this case seeks removal of the former owner of this case based on the right to claim for exclusion from

B. It is recognized that the former owner of the instant house was hindered from entering the parking lot of the instant house, such as the foregoing recognition.