1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association that has obtained approval for establishment from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of housing redevelopment and rearrangement project with the area of project district of 35,763 square meters of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance

On July 201, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by accepting the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Large 425 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant owns land and buildings on the land of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul and its ground adjacent to the instant land.

C. The Defendant’s fence (hereinafter “instant fence”) was installed on the part of 5 square meters in the ship with the indication of the attached drawing (B) on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land”). However, the Defendant asserted that the instant fence was stored at the Plaintiff’s expense due to the Plaintiff’s damage to the Defendant’s existing fence due to the Plaintiff’s construction work, and that the Plaintiff newly installed the fence and he was sprinked up to the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff removed the instant fence in accordance with the agreement made between the Defendant and the Defendant on September 6, 2018, and then removed the wall at the present time.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, result of a request for measurement and appraisal of Han-gu National Land Information Corporation, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the part of the instant wall was removed, but the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s failure to perform a fence construction work according to the boundary line under the agreement on September 6, 2018. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the part of the instant land was still in possession, and the Defendant, at the present time, did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land in order to secure evidence while filing a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff association.

B. According to the facts found earlier, the part of the instant land is examined.