1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 12, 1993, and on September 2, 1995, the registration of ownership transfer on cement block structure, stack roof, and 26.20 square meters on the instant land (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. Defendant C increased or reconstructed the instant store and became a building in the same manner as the attached Form No. 1, which includes the main bank and the water satisfaction room of the instant case.

C. On May 13, 1997, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant C seeking the delivery of the building of the attached drawing (Seoul District Court Seosan Branching 96Ga1025, hereinafter “relevant case”) and received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff, and the above judgment was finalized on June 10, 1997.

[Ground of recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

The Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff’s use even after the judgment of the relevant case on the grounds that the Defendants increased or reconstructed the instant bank and water arcts, etc. located in the instant store.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to remove the instant kitchen and hydroarium to the Plaintiff, and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 5 million to KRW 200,000 per month from the date of completion of the removal of the instant kitchen and hydroarium for damages or unjust enrichment.

B. (1) Determination (1) The fact that Defendant C raised and reconstructed the instant bank and the water capacity room in the instant store is as follows.

However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, the main and the satisfaction officer of the instant case can be found to be a part of the instant store or a mere part of the formation of the said store. Thus, the main and the satisfaction officer of the instant case were consistent with the instant store.

Therefore, the Defendants have a separate ownership in relation to the instant bank and water satisfaction pipes.

legal or factually.