2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s asserted land had access roads jointly used by neighboring residents, including the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant was unable to pass the instant fence by installing the instant fence, thereby resulting in a significant decline in the value of the Plaintiff’s loan.

Since the above act of the defendant constitutes abuse of rights, the defendant is obliged to remove the fence of this case and pay 5 million won to the plaintiff as compensation for damages.

3. If the exercise of the right to make a judgment only intends to cause pain and damage to the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and it can be objectively deemed that it violates social order, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of right, and the subjective requirement that the exercise of the right is to cause pain and damage to the other party can be ratified by objective circumstances shown by the exercise of the right holder's legitimate interest. Whether the exercise of the right constitutes an abuse of right should be determined based on individual and specific matters.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da59783, Dec. 9, 2010). According to the following: (a) return to the instant case; (b) return to the instant case; (c) evidence Nos. 1; and (d) Nos. 3 and 4 (including serial numbers); (d) the space between the Plaintiff’s Ba and the Defendant’s housing among the Defendant’s land was used as a vehicle and parking lot; and (e) the Plaintiff Ba’s residents were the same by installing the instant fence.