1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The defendant is one of 173 square meters in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 175 square meters and 173 square meters in lots (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of Gyeongbuk-gun, Gun, E, and F, adjacent to each of the said lands (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. The Defendant planted 7glus in the land of this case, which is owned by the Plaintiff, such as the written purport of the claim, and installed and used water pipes and arms.

In addition, around 2010, the Defendant loaded gravels generated in the course of performing molding works on the land owned by the Defendant into the attached Table 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the attached Table 13, 14, 15, 16, 16, 8, 9, 10, 10, 12, and 24 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, 11 (including each number, if any), the court of first instance and the branch offices of the Korea National Land Information Corporation, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal by the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant planted 7glus in the land of this case and installed water glus and gluss. Since the defendant loaded gravels on the land of this case and obstructed the exercise of the plaintiff's right to the land of this case, it is obligated to collect the above trees 7glus and the above gravel stones and remove water glus and glus.

As to this, the defendant asserted that he collected gravel stones on the land in the dispute of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize the video of the evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

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

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted for the reasons, and since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair for the conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted.