beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) indicated on the attached sheet No. 5, 7, 8, 9, 4, and 5 on the attached sheet No. 8 square meters of B road and C road No. 68 square meters in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si; and
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 5, 2000, the registration of ownership transfer was made on October 5, 200 with respect to B 8 square meters of road B and C 68 square meters of road C in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant road”).
B. The Defendant, among the instant roads owned by the Plaintiff, installed a fence and a building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of ten square meters in total (10 square meters, including part (b) 6 square meters in the ship connected to each point of (2) 4 square meters and 6, 7, 5, and 1, each point of which is indicated in the attached Table 5, 7, 8, 9, 4, and 5, among the instant roads owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied the instant land without permission from November 201 to the date.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the result of appraiser D's survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Defendant, who newly constructed the instant building and owned it, has the duty to remove the instant building and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, by restoring it to its original state.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) 15 years have passed since the completion of the construction of the building of this case, and the profit that the plaintiff gets from the removal of the building of this case is merely securing a road of 10 square meters. The defendant's damage caused by the removal of the building of this case is excessive. The plaintiff's claim of this case does not have any particular benefit to the plaintiff, while the defendant is too large. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes abuse of right. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair because it constitutes abuse of right. 2) If the court's judgment was examined and the exercise of right was to cause damage to the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises it, and if it can be viewed that it violates the objective social order, the exercise of right is not allowed as abuse of right.