1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff

A. Of the land size D large 229 m29 m2, the annexed drawing indication 2, 3, 6, 7, 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff: (a) sold each of the said lands to the compulsory auction procedure on the volume of 229 square meters in the wife population D (hereinafter “D”) and E-road 27 square meters (hereinafter “E land”); and (b) paid in full the sale price on July 28, 2014.

B. The Defendants received the sale of the said land in the compulsory auction procedure with respect to the volume of 473 square meters in response to D land and E, which is adjacent to D land and E land, and paid in full the sale price on September 11, 2014.

(c)

On March 25, 2019, the Defendants accumulated a stone shed (hereinafter “the instant stone shed”) on the ground of the part (b) part (b) and 15 square meters (hereinafter “part (b)”) connected in order to each point of the attached Form Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 among the land in the attached Form Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, and 2 among the land in D and the land in the attached Form Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 square meters (hereinafter “part (c)”).

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 Insatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The joint inheritors’ duty to remove a building is indivisible due to its nature (Supreme Court Decision 80Da756 Decided June 24, 1980). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly have the duty to remove the instant stone axis to the Plaintiff and deliver the part (b) land and the part (c) land to the Plaintiff.

B. The judgment on the claim for damages is that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff as a result of business damage caused by the Defendants’ failure to open the door of the office and the Plaintiff’s failure to engage in normal business due to the illegal act of piling up the instant stone axis, which caused the Plaintiff’s land in violation of the contract. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5 million with compensation for damages caused by the tort and the delayed damages therefrom.

The argument is asserted.

In this regard, we can find the fact that the damage occurred as alleged by the plaintiff.