1. All appeals filed by the Defendants (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and counterclaims filed by this court are dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the main claim of this case is as follows.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the assignee, except for the case in which the “Succession Intervenor” under the provision is dismissed as the “Acceptance Intervenor” under the provision of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[The grounds for appeal by the defendant-in-fact intervenor are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court shows each of the statements (including the provisional number) in the evidence No. 51 through No. 85 submitted by the defendant-in-fact intervenor in the first instance court, and it is justifiable to find facts in the first instance court and make a judgment on the counterclaim claim

A. The plaintiff and the designated parties of the defendant takeover intervenor exclusively occupy and use the development room, electricity room, studio, and high-priced water tank of the building of this case without the consent of the defendant takeover intervenor who is co-owned share holder.

In addition, without the consent of the defendant's intervenor, the plaintiff and the designated parties changed the use of Q, R, S through AH, AF, AG, AO, or AP of the building of this case to the business facilities of the neighborhood living facilities. Accordingly, in the case of the first neighborhood living facilities, the number of parking lots was 11.22, but as the number of parking lots was changed to the business facilities, there was a significant increase in the number of parking lots to about 5 units as much as 16.83 as the number of parking lots was changed to the business facilities. Since one parking lot area is 1

5. List of drawings;

In the paragraph, "parking lot" is 62.5 square meters (i.e., 12.5 square meters x 5 lots) and is exclusively occupied and used without permission.

Therefore, the Plaintiff and the designated parties are obligated to deliver the above power generation room, electricity room, studio, high-priced water, and parking lot 62.5 square meters to the Intervenor who purchased the instant building, as a exclusion of interference with the part of the instant building.

B. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the designated parties directly possess the above power generation room, electricity room, studio, high-priced water tank, and parking lot parts.

In addition, Gap evidence Nos. 43 to 46, and Eul.