1. The Defendant is installed at a point that connects each point in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s acquisition and use status of the instant real estate ownership (1) on May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of 404m2 and its ground buildings in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, a person related to F in charge of the instant real estate, and 469m2 and 58m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 27, 2014.

(2) The Plaintiff is running a restaurant in the G ground building in Kimpo-si, and uses H land and I roads as the parking lot for the above restaurant.

B. The Defendant, the owner of H land and C road 212 square meters adjacent to I roads at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and the instant fence (hereinafter “instant road”), installed a steel fence on August 14, 2014 on the boundary between I land and I road after the Plaintiff’s bid of the instant real estate as above.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was used as a passage that enters a restaurant parking lot for about 40 years as well as a free use by residents, and the Defendant installed a steel fence and obstructed the Plaintiff’s restaurant business as above. This constitutes an abuse of rights by the Defendant, and the Defendant is obliged not to remove the instant fence and interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit merely because the instant fence was installed to clarify the boundaries of the instant road owned by the Defendant and the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

3. Whether the installation of the defendant's fence constitutes abuse of rights

A. The act of the landowner of the relevant legal doctrine installed a structure on the land owned by himself/herself is subjective.