beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) among the total area of 6,338 square meters in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun; (b)
A. Each point is indicated in Appendix 13, 14, 15, and 13.
Reasons
The fact that the Defendant installed a mar, such as a photo, attached Form 2 on the ground (B), attached in sequence 12, 13, 14, 15, 13 on the land (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned land”) owned by the Plaintiff, which is located in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gun, which is a judgment on the claim for removal, is identical to a photo, attached Form 1 of Annex 1 on the ground of the part (A) connected each point of which is indicated in Annex 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, and 12 on the ground of Annex 1 of Annex 1 to Annex 1 to Annex 1, or that the fact that he installed a mar, such as a photo, attached Form 2 on the ground, connected each point of which is indicated in Annex 2
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to remove the above housing site and stone strawing to the plaintiff as the owner.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that it constitutes an abuse of rights to seek removal, since the area of the above housing zone is not so large and the removal of tin penss requires separate construction to prevent soil erosion from flowing out.
In order for the exercise of the right to be an abuse of the right, the objective of the exercise should be to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and objectively, the exercise of the right should be viewed as a violation of social order. Unless it falls under such cases, even if the loss of the other party is significantly high than the benefit the person has gained by the exercise of the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the right.
(see Supreme Court Decision 90Da10346, Jun. 14, 1991). The Defendant’s assertion is without any interest to seek removal, as alleged by the Defendant, inasmuch as it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s right to seek removal solely with the intent to cause damage and pain to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.