1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 1985, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B large-740 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. On September 14, 201, the instant land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into B large 536 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), C large 92 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and D large 112 square meters (hereinafter “D”).

C. On October 5, 2010, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) with a building permit granted on or around October 5, 201, and completed registration of initial ownership on October 28, 201.

Around October 2005, the Korea Environment Corporation implemented a construction project for laying sewage pipes in one city, Nam-si, and transferred all of the facilities related to the project, such as sewage pipes, to the defendant around March 2008 after completion of the construction project.

E. Before 2005, the Defendant installed an excellent pipe under the part corresponding to the instant C and D land, among the land before the instant partition, and provided concrete packaging for passage of neighboring residents. Of the sewage pipes transferred by the Korea Environment Corporation (hereinafter “the instant sewage pipes”), part of the sewage pipes transferred by the Korea Environment Corporation is installed under the instant C and D land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, 12, Eul evidence 1 through 8, 10, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, images and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s construction of sewage pipes of this case, sewage pipes were installed on the adjacent side of the instant land beyond the part of the instant C and D, which were currently used as a road against the Plaintiff’s intent.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s ownership on the part of the land where the wastewater pipe was installed. Accordingly, the Defendant removed the wastewater pipe from this case, and the Plaintiff.