The Plaintiff asserted that the part where the Defendant installed a fence on the said land is X-5 square meters in line with each point indicated in the list 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, but there is no evidence to prove that the part where the Defendant installed a fence on the said land exceeds the land of 1 square meters in the above part (B).

Therefore, the defendant who interferes with the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership by installing the above fence on the land owned by the plaintiff and occupying it on the land owned by the plaintiff shall remove the fences installed on the ground of the part (B) part of the ship connected in the order of 10, 11, 12, 13, and 10 of the appraisal map (attached Form 1), among the appraisal map, on the part (B) of the land owned by the plaintiff, which is located on the land owned by the plaintiff, and has the duty to deliver

(1) The plaintiff's remaining claims are without merit. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed due to the lack of reason. The plaintiff's partial dismissal is merely due to a specific issue in the fence area. The plaintiff's complaint was essential to properly specify the fence, the defendant's complaint was invaded upon the plaintiff's land, while the defendant's complaint was not recognized at all, and the costs of the lawsuit in most cases were borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.