1. The Defendant points out to the Plaintiff each point of the attached Form 14, 15, 13, 12, and 14, among the land size of 728 square meters in Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land and the building in the Changwon-si Masan-si Dri (hereinafter “Dri”) and the land in the above building. The Defendant is the owner of the E land adjacent to the land in question and the building in question.

B. On the boundary of the above land, the Defendant installed a wooden wall (hereinafter “instant wall”) after laying a steel fence on the boundary of the above land, and the instant structure that is tanked with this is part of C’s land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1-4 and images, the result of this court’s verification, as a result of this court’s request for surveying and appraisal to the Vice Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant structure and return unjust enrichment from March 3, 2011 in which the structure was installed to the completion date of the removal.

The defendant sought damages because the plaintiff's right to view and right to enjoy sunshine was violated due to the wall installed by the defendant.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the instant structure established by the Defendant with respect to the claim for removal is partially possessed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant structure to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment is insufficient to recognize that only the Defendant only used the pertinent land for its original purpose and gained substantial benefits (the Plaintiff appears to have used it by placing his own goods on the instant structure for a considerable period of time). Since there are no objective data to calculate the relevant land use fee, the argument regarding unjust enrichment is rejected.

C. There is no clear evidence to deem that the Plaintiff suffered from infringement of the right to view and the right to enjoy sunshine that goes beyond the generally accepted limit due to the construction of the fence of this case regarding the claim for damages.