1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact that the Defendant laid a drainage pipe of 1,500 meters in diameter at the part of the ship 1,2, 3, and 44, connected in the following order: 3,679 square meters in I forest land and 3,679 square meters in J forest and 21,32 square meters in J forest, 21,32 square meters in size, the Plaintiff E, F, and G, etc., owned by the Plaintiff A, B, and CD (hereinafter “L”) and the Defendant laid a drainage pipe of 1,500 meters in diameter, or can be recognized by the overall purport of the appraisal and pleading of appraiser M.

(hereinafter referred to as "discharge pipe"). (b) The drainage pipe shall be limited to the drainage pipe.

In accordance with the above facts, the defendant shall remove the drainage pipes laid underground on the plaintiffs' ground, unless other circumstances exist, and deliver the land of the above 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the plaintiffs A, B, C, and D, and the land of the above 4, to the plaintiffs E, F, and G.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant constructed the facility with the consent of the plaintiffs, and the size of the drainage pipe is changed from 600 meters to 1,500 meters as originally planned at the request of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claims constitute abuse of rights against the good faith principle.

B. The following facts, recognized as one of the facts, are either in dispute or in accordance with the purport of Gap's evidence 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence 4 and 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 7-1 to 11-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 14, the fact inquiry results of this court's realization market, plaintiff F, defendant representative's each questioning results, and all pleadings.

① The Defendant was the owner who purchased on June 11, 2012, the 2,185 square meters of N Forest, 715 square meters of O forest, 387 square meters of P forest, Q forest, and 9,231 square meters of land adjacent to the said land, and intended to construct drainage pipes for discharging wastewater and excellent water in order to create a site for a garage on the said land.

② In order to pass through the underground of the plaintiffs’ land, the defendant received a written consent from the plaintiffs on August 2012 for the construction works laid 600 meters away from the diameter of the drainage pipe, and thereafter on January 2013.