1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, asserting that the Defendant, the owner of 137 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”) in the Dong-si, Seogyeong-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) owned by the Plaintiff, was unable to remove the fence and deliver a part of 5 square meters in order to the Plaintiff’s ship connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 square meters in the attached Form 1, 2, 4, and 1.

However, if a fence is installed on the boundary of land, in principle, the central or central line of the fence should be located on the boundary of both land, except in extenuating circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da6063 delivered on August 26, 1997). A dispute between the Plaintiff and the former owner of the Defendant’s land appears to have occurred over the boundary of land around 2011.

The fence seeking removal by the Plaintiff is a new one installed by the former owner of the Defendant’s land after surveying the result of the aforementioned dispute, and plays a role in the boundary of the original and the Defendant’s land.

However, as a result of the survey and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation and its branch, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the centerline of the above fence exceeded the boundary of the original and the Defendant’s land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

As a result of the survey and appraisal of this case, the outer wall of the wall is measured, and the boundary point of the land on the side of the road appears to be on the center line of the wall, and the boundary point on the opposite side also indicated on the wall.

As a result, if the center line of the wall deviates from the boundary of the land or exceeds the boundary of the land, it cannot be confirmed where the scope of the wall is anywhere.

It seems that the area of the part possessed by the defendant over the boundary is not calculated.

Therefore, the claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant invadeds the land owned by the plaintiff.