1. In order to the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 20, 21, 22, 23, and 20 among the land size of 517 square meters in Cho Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 517 square meters in the Dag Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of the D large 260 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant land 2”).

B. The Defendant owned a plastic house (hereinafter “the instant plastic house”) on the ground of 9m2 indicated in the attached Form 1 among the land in the instant case, and occupied the part of 113m2 with the same drawing indicating “A” (hereinafter “the instant plastic house”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, each of the records and images, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant occupied the land No. 1 of this case owned by the plaintiff and obstructed the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the vinyl house of this case to the plaintiff and return the occupied portion to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the claim for land purchase, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s wife purchased the instant land No. 2 from the Plaintiff’s wife around 2009, and also purchased the instant land, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the good faith principle, around 2009, the Defendant’s wife purchased the instant land No. 2 and its ground buildings from the Plaintiff’s wife, and purchased the instant land and its appurtenant facilities, which are the accessories, and allowed the use of the instant land and its appurtenant facilities. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant and seeking the return of the occupied portion should not be allowed as an abuse of rights in violation of the good faith principle. 2)