1. The defendant,

A. Of the land listed in the attached list No. 2, attached Form No. 38, 25, 26, 39, and 38 shall apply to the Plaintiff A.

1. In addition to the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 and appraiser D’s appraisal result, the following facts are as follows: ① Plaintiff A owns the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table; Plaintiff B owns the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table; ② Defendant installed a stone shed with a height of approximately 2.2m in height on the ground of 4m2m of the part caused by the damage in the ship connecting each point listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table Nos. 38, 25, 26, 39, and 38, among the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 29, the attached Table Nos. 29, 34, 34, 54, 37, 35, 36, and 36m of the attached Table No. 1.

According to the above facts, the defendant occupied part of each land listed in the separate sheet and installed the above stone shed on the ground, thereby hindering the plaintiffs' exercise of ownership. Thus, the defendant must remove each stone shed installed on the above land to the plaintiffs.

2. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' request for removal of each of the above stone festivals constitutes an abuse of rights.

If the exercise of the right can be seen as an abuse of the right, the purpose of the exercise of the right should be to give pain to the other party and to inflict damages on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the other party, and the exercise of the right should be objectively considered as a violation of social order.

Unless this case is applicable, the other party's damage is significantly greater than the profit that the exercise of the right holder obtains by the exercise of the right, and such circumstance alone does not constitute an abuse of right.

Supreme Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on September 4, 2002