Of the judgment of the first instance, the defendant is paid KRW 112,942,332 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, attached Form 1 to the plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portion of "2." as stated below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows from Nos. 9 to 17.

The defendant asserts that since 15,91,920 won of enforcement fine has been imposed on the defendant due to the increase of 6 households due to the necessity and request of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs should bear the above money.

However, according to Eul evidence No. 5-1, the defendant's non-performance penalty imposed on the defendant is not due to extension works, but can be recognized that it was imposed on the defendant due to the defendant's act of substantial repair of a detached house to six households. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The fourth 18th 18th 18th 18th 18th 18th 18th 18th 199, “The above 112,942,32 won is delivered from the plaintiff, and the building indicated in the annexed 1st 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 1st 5th 5th 1st 5th 1st 5th 1st 5th 1st 20

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant should be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims should be dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds.

The decision of the court of first instance, which partially different conclusions, was received from the plaintiffs 112,942,332 won, and at the same time ordered the plaintiffs to deliver the building as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, it was improper to revoke this part and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the revoked part. The defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit.