1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns a house on the land and its ground of Dasan-si, Dasan-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and the Defendant owns the E site and 496m2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) located below the Plaintiff’s land, and resides in a house located on the ground of E’s land.

B. Around May 20, 2015, the Defendant, as a boundary between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s D land, installed a fry house to install a retaining wall on the part indicating the attached drawing on the side of the Plaintiff’s land access road from the road, and subsequently the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and thus the retaining wall was no longer installed and suspended.

C. The Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land are located respectively on the upper and lower sides of the mountain slope, and on the boundary, at least three meters of the height of livestock constructed by the Plaintiff in around 2011 is constructed, and on the middle part of the stable, there is a drainage way to flow water coming from the Plaintiff’s land and flow water coming from sewage pipes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, and Gap evidence 2-2, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of each appraisal commission to the President of the Asia District Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant installed a retaining wall or a fry house over the Plaintiff’s land boundary constitutes a tort or an act of installing a retaining wall on the Plaintiff’s land, even if it does not have any interest, and was done solely for the purpose of causing pain or damage to the Plaintiff, such as interfering with the Plaintiff’s right to passage, who is the owner or user of the surrounding land, and interfering with F’s right to view. This constitutes an abuse of rights beyond the limit of exercise of rights, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to remove the part over which the Plaintiff’s land was invaded and deliver the said part