case where abuse of rights is not an abuse of rights

Even if the plaintiff's refusal to comply with the defendant's request for sale of the building site, the removal of the second floor and its finishing construction cost are not less than 10 times compared with the market price of the building site, and the economic value and lifespan of the remaining building are considerably decreased due to the removal, the plaintiff's request for removal of the building site and request for delivery of the site cannot be deemed an abuse of rights if the above intrusion is useful for passage expansion to enter the building site adjacent to the plaintiff's house owned by the plaintiff and adjacent to the inside of the site.

Article 2 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 80Na49 delivered on September 19, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below confirmed that the second floor building (e.g., wedding hall) constructed on the building site adjacent to the building site of this case owned by the plaintiff was invaded by each part of the judgment in this case, and decided around 1971, the building site of this case owned by the plaintiff, and agreed between the defendant's husband, the non-party and the plaintiff, who was the owner of the building site of this second floor building, and the plaintiff, who was the owner of the building site of this case, shall be regarded as a boundary at a level of 50 centimeters between the existing house located on each site at that time, notwithstanding any boundary in the cadastral map of each of the above building site. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is unfair. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just

The second point is determined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's defense of abuse of rights against the defendant's defendant's refusal to purchase the land of this case, and that the removal of the second floor building and its finishing work above 10 times more than the market price of the land of this case, and that the economic value and number of remaining buildings, etc. are considerably reduced due to the removal, but it cannot be deemed that the removal of the building of this case and its request for the delivery of the site of this case cannot be seen as an abuse of rights because it cannot be seen as a violation of social order or the harm to the defendant, since the removal of the building of this case and its request for the purchase of the site of this case cannot be viewed as an abuse of rights, and the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to abuse of rights due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)