1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the results of the request for measurement and appraisal to the original branch of the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation which belongs to the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation and the purport of the entire pleadings.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the land of 26m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seocho-si, Seocho-si, and is the owner of the D-based ground building adjacent to the said land (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Of the above buildings owned by the Defendant, the part on the right pole (hereinafter “instant part”) among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff is located on the ground of one square meter on board, which connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 6, and 1 among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Among the instant buildings owned by the Plaintiff’s purport of the cause of the claim, the part on the instant crime is on the ground of one square meter out of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to remove the part on the instant crime and deliver the land to the Plaintiff.

B. If the exercise of the right to make a judgment only intends to cause pain and damage to the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and it can be objectively deemed that it violates the social order, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of right, and the subjective requirement that the exercise of the right is to cause pain and damage to the other party can be ratified by the objective situation shown by the exercise of the right holder's legitimate interest. Whether the exercise of the right constitutes abuse of right should be determined based on individual and specific cases.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da59783, Dec. 9, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the part of the instant bed, where the Plaintiff seeks removal, is the part on the right side side of the instant building, and where part of the said be removed, the Defendant owned the instant bed.