1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is.

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the survey conducted on April 28, 1995 was a boundary restoration survey, and that the building of this case did not have been affected by the defendant's land as a result of the said survey.

According to the result of the fact inquiry into the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, the fact that the building of this case (which is marked as the third party as the result of the fact inquiry) as the result of the survey conducted on April 28, 1995 showed the fact that the building of this case (which is marked as the line) was invaded on the land owned by the defendant of this case, is recognized. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is difficult to accept.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's counterclaim of this case constitutes an abuse of right.

If the exercise of the right can be seen as an abuse of the right, the subjective purpose of the exercise of the right is to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damages on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and the exercise of the right should be objectively viewed as a violation of social order.

Unless such a case does not constitute an abuse of right, even though damage to the other party is significantly higher than the profit that the person who has exercised the right is entitled to receive by exercising the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of right.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da58173, Feb. 25, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health class and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are merely the sole purpose of the Defendant’s counterclaiming the Plaintiff to cause pain and injury to the Plaintiff, and there is no benefit to the Defendant.

(2).