1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 1,427 square meters in attached Form 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 26, among the 1,427 square meters in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-do.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff purchased from D on August 21, 2002, the 1,427 square meters (the 1,514 square meters wide, but the 87 square meters wide was divided into the above E on May 12, 2014, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on September 13, 2002.

On October 25, 2010, the Defendant purchased 4,242 square meters of the above G G G factory site and its ground buildings adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land from F and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 29, 2010.

Plaintiff

Of the land, there is a stone embankment of about 3 meters in height of cement retaining wall and about 2 meters in height, which are owned by the defendant, on the part (B) part (hereinafter “the land in dispute in this case”), 45 square meters connected in order to each point of the attached map Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, and 5 (hereinafter “the land in dispute in this case”), which is part of the land in question.

[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the records and images of Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, appraiser H's survey and appraisal results, and the purport of the whole pleadings and the grounds for claim as to the above recognition facts, the defendant is the owner of a retaining wall, etc. and is in possession of the land in the dispute of this case as the site. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove retaining walls, etc. from the plaintiff seeking the exclusion of disturbance as the owner of the land in the dispute of this case, deliver the land in this case, and return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land

At the time of construction around August 2005 of the Defendant’s defense with the retaining wall, etc. of the Defendant’s defense, the Plaintiff knew of the violation of the boundary, and accepted or impliedly accepted it. Nor can it be allowed to seek removal of retaining wall, etc. and delivery of the instant dispute land contrary to the good faith principle.

Even if the plaintiff had known about the violation of boundary, the plaintiff is entitled to do so.