1. The Defendant, in sequence, shall each point of the Plaintiff indicated in the attached Form 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 on the ground of 1,289 square meters on the land prior to Seocheon-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of not less than 1,289§³ prior to Macheon-si.

B. The Defendant is the owner of a container established in the part (b) of 28 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) which connects each point of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 with the indication of the annexed drawing on the above land in sequence, and occupies the above part of the land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, appraiser D's appraisal

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the cause of the claim is obliged to remove containers installed on the instant land and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant owned a container installed on the instant land, which is owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied the instant land.

B. (1) The defendant alleged that the plaintiff consented explicitly or implicitly to the establishment of a container on the land of this case, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff consented to the establishment of a container on the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff consented to the installation of containers on the land of this case is without merit.

(2) The Defendant asserts that the instant claim constitutes an abuse of rights since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to induce the Defendant, although there was no particular benefit to the Plaintiff even if the instant land was delivered to the Plaintiff, even though it was extremely low in proportion to the portion of 1,289 square meters prior to Macheon-si.

However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant lawsuit was brought to the Plaintiff for harassment without any particular benefit, on the sole basis of the circumstance that the instant land has a large portion of 1,289 square meters prior to Macheon-si and other evidence submitted by the Defendant. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the claim of this case is abuse of rights.