2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 405,161 won and the plaintiff.

In civil procedure, the purport of the claim must be clearly identified so that its contents and scope can be clearly identified. Since the issue of specification of the claim is an ex officio investigation, if the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order the correction ex officio regardless of the defendant's objection, and if the plaintiff does not comply with the order of correction, the court shall dismiss the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2904, Sept. 8, 1981). However, although the area of the bank to remove the part of the plaintiff's claim for removal of the plaintiff's debate was specified, since the height of the bank and the quantity of soil to remove it are not specified, it cannot be seen that the entry of the claim in the purport of the purport of the request is clearly identified as the purport of the removal by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Accordingly, the court ordered the Plaintiff to specify the purport of the claim ex officio, but the fact that the Plaintiff did not comply with the claim is obvious in this court. Thus, the part of the claim for removal of dynasium in this case is unlawful.

2. The judgment on the part of the claim for the delivery of land is based on the part 51 square meters in the lower part of the claim on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the claim was stated, so the fact that the soil was stored on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the claim was sought by the Defendant, and that the soil was stored on the part on the part on the part on the part

3. Determination on the plaintiff's claim for refund of expenses for boundary restoration surveying

A. The Plaintiff’s soil on land owned by the Defendant flows into land owned by the Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant.