1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Table 6, 8, indicating the attached sheet on the ground of 196 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

The real estate owned by the Plaintiff in Suwon-si CJ 196 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s site”) is the real estate owned by the Plaintiff. D land and buildings adjacent to the Plaintiff’s site are real estate owned by the Defendant; the Plaintiff’s site is the real estate owned by the Defendant; the Plaintiff’s wall installed by the Defendant exists in the part connecting each point of the 6,7,8, and 8 attached Table 6, and the Defendant occupied a portion of 5 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the 6,7,8, and 6, which is the Plaintiff’s site, in sequence of the 6,7, and 6, which are the Plaintiff’s land. The fact that the Defendant occupied a portion of 5 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the 6,7,8, and 6, which is the

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove fences installed in the part connected with each point of 6,7,8, and 6 of the Plaintiff’s land, which connects each point of 6,7,8, and 6 of the said drawings, to the Plaintiff, who exercises the Plaintiff’s right to claim the exclusion of disturbance based on the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land, barring any special circumstance.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case since the survey and appraisal of the attached appraisal was erroneous, but it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the above survey and appraisal were erroneous only with the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 through 10.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.