1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the defendant C's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant among the costs of appeal.

The reasoning of the court of the first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the part to be filled out under the following among the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The second part of the second part of the second part to be filled by "the remaining amount of KRW 130 million out of the remaining amount of KRW 130 million" shall be construed as "the remaining amount of KRW 30 million up to January 30, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 100 million."

A. The court below held that “The Plaintiff is 34,318,800 won as follows” of the first 6 set forth “34,318,800 won as follows (the Plaintiff is 450,000 won per month or 250,000 won per month for the purchase and sale of each real estate of this case, or is 34,318,800 won per month as follows, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).”

A. The lower judgment is added to the second page of the 10th page. Defendant C asserted that the period of illegal possession should be limited from May 20, 2010 to January 20, 2012, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer, or that the Plaintiff cannot be said to have the right to possess possession of each of the instant real estate before May 25, 2009, which was executed by the Plaintiff against Defendant C. However, this assertion is contrary to the facts of recognition as seen earlier, and the evidence submitted by the said Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse this and there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently. Furthermore, Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not in existence due to the above Defendant’s illegal possession since neighboring residents of each of the instant real estate closed the access road against the Plaintiff’s use of each of the instant real estate, and thus the Plaintiff did not use each of the instant real estate at all. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the aforementioned Defendant’s illegal possession alone did not constitute any damage to the Plaintiff.”

3. Conclusion.