토지인도 등 청구
1. The appeal by the Defendant (including the Plaintiff-Counterclaim) and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (including the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff) were expanded at the trial of D.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. In the Plaintiff’s main claim, Defendant D is obligated to remove the instant underground structures, such as sewage pipes or sewage conduits, on the ground that Defendant D installs, occupies, and uses the instant underground structures on the ground of the instant dispute 2. Preliminaryly, in light of a long-standing dispute relationship surrounding the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land even if Defendant D did not install the instant underground structures, the Plaintiff may interfere with the Defendants, and thus, Defendant D, as a claim for removal or interference prevention based on the Plaintiff’s land ownership, seek the prohibition of the removal of the instant underground structures against the Defendants as a claim for removal of the interference with the removal of the instant underground structures, first of all, as to the claim for removal of the instant underground structures based on the Plaintiff’s land ownership, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant D installed and used the instant underground structures on the instant dispute 20 land by installing it in the instant dispute, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Next, with respect to the claim against removal interference of the underground structure of this case, it is acknowledged that the right to claim removal interference does not wait for the occurrence of interference but take preventive measures at present. Thus, in order to find that there is a concern about interference, it is worth being protected in advance by the action for prevention of interference, so there should be an objective reasonable probability, and the conceptual possibility alone cannot be acknowledged. < Amended by Act No. 4956, May 1, 1995>