1. The Defendant, in sequence, has each point indicated in the attached Form No. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 12 among the land size of 562 square meters in the city of Innju to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the pleadings and the whole purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff owned a house located on the D ground adjacent to the instant land, and the Defendant has a duty to remove the above ground and deliver the above 15 square meters out of the instant land on the ground of 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 12 square meters of the attached drawings among the instant land in sequence, in consideration of the following facts: (a) Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 3 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers) and each statement or image; and (b) the Defendant has a duty to remove the above ground and deliver the above 15 square meters of the instant land.

In regard to this, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant's father in Suwon District Court No. 96da1827 against the defendant's father and removed the fence of the defendant's side by substitute execution after receiving a favorable judgment. The plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it filed the same lawsuit after the plaintiff's favorable judgment.

According to the statements or images in Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court's father E seeking removal of a fence installed on some of the 3352 square meters on the ground of Gyeonggi-gun's Friju-gun's 96da1827 (the land before the division of the land in this case) and received a favorable judgment and conducted a substitute execution around 2000, but it is recognized that the land for which the plaintiff sought removal in this case was conducted by the defendant, since the land was again installed after the execution by the defendant, the subject matter of this case is different from the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case, and thus, the subject matter of this case does not affect the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.