1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 18, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land C (hereinafter “instant land”) and F (hereinafter “instant land”), and the said F land was later merged with G land.

B. The defendant is a corporation operating a golf range business, etc., and around May 2005, the defendant constructed a golf range on the above D land adjacent to each above land and E land and completed registration of preservation of ownership on March 14, 2006.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant set up a waterway with the line connecting each point in sequence of 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 8, and 7 as the boundary line in the attached Form No. 7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 as the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 52 square meters inboard (b) are located within the land of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the result of the commission of appraisal by the court of first instance to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant created the waterway of this case without the plaintiff's consent, which prevents the exercise of the plaintiff's right to the land of this case, and possession and use the waterway of this case without any legal ground.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the waterway of this case and pay the plaintiff unjust enrichment with the use of the waterway of this case and profits.

B. 1) The right to claim the removal of disturbance based on the ownership under Article 214 of the Civil Act, which is recognized for the removal and prevention of interference where the ownership is impeded or is likely to be interfered with, should be exercised to the other party with the position of controlling the situation of interference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da54951, Sept. 20, 2007). “Obstruction” in the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on the ownership continues to exist in the present.