A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 4,595 square meters prior to C in Innju-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of the area of 616 square meters adjacent to the instant land, which is the owner of the area of 4,595 square meters adjacent to the instant land, and the owner of the area of 616 square meters adjacent to the relevant land, and of the area of the relevant ground and the building of the luxal roof housing and the restaurant building (cafeteria, the kitchen, the toilet, the toilet,

B. Of the assembly-type storage built and owned by the Defendant on the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “part of the assembly-type warehouse of this case”), five square meters (hereinafter “the instant assembly-type warehouse”) are constructed on the part of the attached Form 1 indicating the boundary of the instant land. Of the retaining wall built by the Defendant, the part of the retaining wall of this case (hereinafter “part of the retaining wall of this case”) affects the boundary of the instant land, and is constructed on the part of the attached Form 2 among the instant land.

[Evidence: Records or images of Evidence A: Results of a request for surveying and appraisal to the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove part of the assembly-type warehouse of this case and part of the retaining wall of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of the land of this case, unless there is a title to occupy the land of this case, and deliver part 28 square meters of the land of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, around August 19, 2002, the Defendant installed a prefabricated-type warehouse and retaining wall in the presence of E, the former owner of the instant land and the father of the Plaintiff. At the time, the Defendant did not fully recognize the fact that the said article invadeds the boundary of the instant land, and had not been raised any objection from E or the Plaintiff so far. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjust, as the part of the instant prefabricated-type warehouse and the profits from the removal of the retaining wall of this case are considerably larger than the profits the Plaintiff gained by the Plaintiff.