1. Defendant B:

A. 1,041 square meters in Seoul, E prior 40 square meters in size, F forest land 1,785 square meters in size, and G forest land 231 square meters in size.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 1984, the Plaintiff completed each registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the area of 440 square meters in Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun on July 20, 1984 with respect to F forest land of 1,785 square meters and G forest land of 231 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”)

B. On October 14, 2009, Defendant B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale by compulsory auction on September 29, 2009 with respect to the 1,041 square meters and the wooden string roof house, cement block block structure, cement string roof, one story of the above ground, and Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B.

C. The part as described in Paragraph 1 of this Article is part of block warehouses, (d), (e) and (e) of the Plaintiff’s building owned by B, and (f) of the wooden storage, respectively, and the above (a), (d), (e), and (f) are invaded by the instant land.

around 2012, the Defendants cut down trees and large-scale trees on the instant land. The market price of night trees cut by the Defendants is 598,820 won in total, and the market price of large-scale trees is 1,00,000 won in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 12, the result of appraiser H’s market price appraisal, the result of each appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to remove and deliver each of the above parts of the above parts to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, except in extenuating circumstances. (2) Defendant B’s claim as to Defendant B’s assertion argues that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes an abuse of rights.

If the exercise of the right can be seen as an abuse of the right, the purpose of the exercise of the right is to give pain to the other party and to inflict damages on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right.