The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim installed and corrected a steel entrance for the purpose of obstructing the passage of the defendant when there is a dispute over the ownership of land, such as Leecheon-si B, etc. with the defendant, and the defendant's act of saw the locks as a saw shall constitute a justifiable act, self-help act, or emergency escape and thus, shall not be deemed unlawful (misunderstanding of facts)

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and on this basis, the court below ruled that the defendant was ruled against the victim in the relevant civil procedure claiming registration of transfer of ownership on part of the land B in Echeon-si, which is, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and that the defendant was urgently required to conduct the above act because there was no other lawful means or method to correct the victim's act, in addition to the damage of locks owned by the victim.

In full view of the fact that the defendant's act cannot be seen as a justifiable act, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

B. 1) The "act that does not violate the social norms" as stipulated in Article 20 of the relevant legal principles refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the motive or legitimacy of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protection interest and the benefit and the benefit of infringement, urgency, and the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005).

claim is not practicable if it is not possible to preserve the claim by legal procedure; or