1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap51442, asserting that the act of removing part of the part of the retaining wall of this case without the plaintiffs' consent, which is the owner of the retaining wall of this case, constitutes a tort, and that the defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs as Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap70573, against the plaintiffs, to reach a contribution from 2,645 m2,645 m2 (hereinafter "W land of this case"). Thus, in order for them to reach a contribution from the retaining wall of this case to 2,645 m2 (hereinafter "W land of this case"), the defendant filed a counterclaim against the defendant, claiming that he had the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case, such as the purport of the counterclaim.

B. On December 31, 2007, the Seoul Central District Court cannot be deemed to recognize the Defendant’s right to passage over the surrounding land. Even if the Defendant’s right to passage over the surrounding land is recognized, the Defendant’s right to passage over the surrounding land can only be subject to compulsory execution according to the procedure prescribed by the Act, by applying for removal of the retaining wall or by the court’s confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land. As such, the Defendant’s voluntary removal of the retaining wall of this case, like the Defendant, cannot be deemed a legitimate exercise of the right to passage over the retaining wall of this case. However, the Defendant’s removal of part of the retaining wall of this case without permission on the cargo and W’s land constitutes a tort, and the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim of the counterclaim of this case (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance court”).

C. The defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and the Seoul High Court decided on March 2008.