1. The defendant shall give order to the plaintiff each point of indication 1, 2, 3, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the 600 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun Co., Ltd.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 11, 2016 with respect to the land of Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, 600 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Defendant is the owner of the Gyeonggi-gun D 30 square meters adjacent to the instant land and the owner of the Gyeonggi-si D 829 square meters adjacent to the said land.

Among the land in this case, there exists a retaining wall in this case on the ship which connects each point of the attached Form 1 and 3, and the defendant occupies a part of 27 square meters in the ship which connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, and 1 among the land in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 3, the result of this court's entrustment of survey appraisal, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above basic facts on the claim for land delivery, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff a part of 27 square meters in the ship (b) which connects each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1 among the instant land in sequence.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant installed the retaining wall of this case and claimed removal of the retaining wall of this case as a claim for removal of interference based on ownership.

In order for a movable to be recognized as being consistent with a real estate, it should be determined by considering whether the movable is attached and combined to the extent that it can not be separated without causing damage to the movable or excessive expenses, and whether the existing real estate can be the object of separate ownership in the transaction with independent economic utility in its physical structure, use and function.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da39270 delivered on July 27, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, it is hard to find that the Defendant installed the retaining wall of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant installed the retaining wall of this case. In addition, according to each evidence in the above basic facts, the retaining wall of this case is installed on the land of this case.