beta
Text
1. The Defendants are on the line connecting each point in the separate sheet No. 1, 4, and 6 among the lands listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of all the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the same Table of the same Table (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”). The Defendants are the owners of one-half share of each of the land in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-based 1,853 square meters (hereinafter “D”) adjacent to the said land.
B. At the boundary between the land Nos. 1, 2 and D in the instant case, there was a wall of concrete material (hereinafter “instant wall”) on the line that connects Nos. 1, 4, and 6 of the separate drawings among the land Nos. 1, 2 in the instant case. At present, the said wall was dead.
C. The Defendants interfere with the Plaintiff’s re-installation of the instant fence.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry, film, and video set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading
2. In the absence of special circumstances to determine the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the owner of all or part of the instant land, and is entitled to install a fence on each of the instant land as an exercise of ownership, and the Defendants are not recognized to have the right to prevent the installation of the fence, the Defendants shall not interfere with the installation of the said fence (the instant claim for the purpose of restoring the previously installed fence constitutes the act of preserving the jointly owned property, and thus, the Plaintiff, not the majority right holder of the instant land, may solely file a claim with the Plaintiff, not the majority right holder of the instant land). 3. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to leave the instant wall, and that neighboring merchants, including the Defendants, have the right to pass through the place where the said wall is installed, and that the installation of the said wall constitutes the abuse of rights of the Plaintiff.
B. The above facts of recognition are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings.