청구이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Part] In Part 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court, " July 14, 2009" shall be considered as " July 15, 2009".
In the last sentence of the judgment of the first instance court, " September 30, 201" shall be " September 27, 2011".
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. Although part of the building indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff’s assertion is located within 172 square meters in the Docheon-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant may use the instant land in a valid and appropriate manner by receiving rent from the Plaintiff, and even if a part of the building owned by the Plaintiff is demolished, it cannot be used in accordance with its original purpose of use, such as construction of the building on the instant land. However, the Defendant intended to remove the said building for the purpose of bullying the Plaintiff as a retaliation for misstatement or appraisal. Thus, the execution of removal according to the judgment stated in the purport of the claim should not be allowed as abuse of rights.
B. 1) In order to determine whether the exercise of the right constitutes an abuse of the right, a subjective purpose of the exercise of the right is to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict losses on the other party, and there should be no profits on the other party. In an objective view, the exercise of the right should be deemed to be in violation of social order. If the exercise of the right does not fall under such a case, even if the other party suffers losses on the part of the other party than the profits that the exercise of the right gains, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22083, 22090, Sept. 4, 2002).