담장철거등
1. The Defendant shall in turn order the Plaintiff each point of 13, 4, 5, 12, and 13, among the land size of 150 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and the attached drawings.
1. Basic factual basis
A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 12, 2007 with respect to the land of 150 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendant is the owner of a house with a size of 194 square meters and its ground, which is in contact with the instant land, and owns a fence, such as written in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1, which was constructed on the instant land.
[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the results of the survey of the cadastral status of appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the land of this case, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the fence constructed on the land of this case according to the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of disturbance based on the plaintiff's ownership and deliver the occupied part of the land of this case.
In regard to this, the defendant defense that the legal superficies is established under customary law on the part where the defendant's fence was installed among the land of this case. Thus, the legal superficies under customary law is generated when the land owned by the same person and the above ground buildings are different owners due to sale, purchase, or other legitimate acts. Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be viewed as identical to the building subject to legal superficies under customary law.
In addition, the defendant asserts that the removal of a wall upon the plaintiff's request constitutes an abuse of rights because the removal of a wall is more exposed to a large number of garbage and garbage, and only causes pain to neighboring residents and the defendant, but it is difficult to view the plaintiff's request as an abuse of rights solely on the ground that the defendant asserts
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.