1. From November 23, 2017, the Defendant points out to the Plaintiff each of the indication 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the 3m2 in Seoyang-si.

On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land on November 23, 2017 through a compulsory auction procedure for real estate on three square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

On April 23, 1983, the Defendant acquired the ownership of D, D, 134 square meters, adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and constructed a building on that ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership preservation on December 16, 192.

Part of the instant building is constructed on the part (A) part of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant part”) which connects each point of the Plaintiff’s land with the indication of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 in sequence.

【Ground of Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 through 3, each video No. 2-1 through 3, and each part of the instant building is constructed on the part of the instant crime, and possessed as a result of the request for measurement, appraisal, and the overall purport of the pleading by the Korea Land Information Corporation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the said part of the instant crime, and deliver the part of the instant crime to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

On the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the removal of the above building and the claim for delivery of land constitute abuse of rights.

The subjective requirement that the exercise of the right causes pain to the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and if it can be seen that it violates the social order objectively, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of rights. The subjective requirement that the exercise of the right is to cause pain or damage to the other party can be confirmed by the objective situation that lacks legitimate benefit of the right holder. Whether the exercise of the right becomes an abuse of rights is individual and specific.