1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the attached Form 1, 2, 14, among the 2,587 square meters of land for the stock farm at the time of racing to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is deemed to have installed a wall on the ground block (hereinafter “instant wall”) with a size of 2,587 square meters adjacent to the instant land in racing-si. The Defendant is the owner of D farm site with a size of 2,408 square meters adjacent to the instant land. The Defendant installed a wall on the ground block (hereinafter “instant wall”) with a size of 76 square meters adjacent to the instant land in sequence that connects each point of 1, 2, 14, 13, and 1 on the instant land.

According to the above facts, the defendant is the owner who installed the wall of this case on the land of this case and interferes with the possession and use of the plaintiff's land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff can seek removal of the wall of this case by exercising the right to claim removal of disturbance based on the ownership of this case against the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant fence to the Plaintiff and deliver part 76 square meters of “b” on the said site to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that, based on the boundary point designated by the Plaintiff, the Defendant was unable to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, since it was based on the existing fence and newly installed the instant fence.

As to this, the witness E’s testimony, consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, was aware that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the construction site at the time of construction of the instant fence, and thus, there was an agreement on the boundary point between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not appear to have observed the site that the Plaintiff directly instructed the boundary point, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant agreed on the boundary point. Accordingly, it is merely a conclusion of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. On the contrary, the Plaintiff instructed the construction of the instant fence, such as F, E, and G fact-finding (Evidence 1).