1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed facts

A. Sejong Special Self-Governing City C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and D land (hereinafter “Defendant land”) were originally owned by E. The Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land from E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 6, 2012. The Defendant purchased the Defendant’s land from E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 7, 2012.

B. The sales contract that the Plaintiff entered into with E was stated as follows: “The purchaser shall construct the stone embankment of the Plaintiff’s land, and the stone embankment of the northwest west west west west west west west, and the retaining wall shall be constructed by the lower prop.” The Defendant installed the retaining wall at its own expense.

C. The retaining wall of this case is located in the bend part of the ship, which connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 8, 7, and 1, which is the Plaintiff’s land.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry or video of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers, if any), the result of the on-site verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that ownership of the Plaintiff’s land is hindered due to the retaining wall, and the Defendant, as the owner of the retaining wall of this case, is obligated to remove the retaining wall of this case installed on the Plaintiff’s land and deliver the relevant part to the Plaintiff

3. In order to recognize that an article is consistent with the real estate, the determination must be made by taking into account whether the article is attached and combined to the extent that it cannot be separated without causing damage to the article or excessive expenses, and whether the existing real estate can become an object of separate ownership in transaction with an independent economic utility and independent from the existing real estate in its physical structure, use and function;

(Supreme Court Decision 208Da49202 Decided May 14, 2009). In light of the above-mentioned facts, the result of on-site inspection by this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the retaining wall of this case is a structure fixed on the Plaintiff’s land.