1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the above basic facts regarding the removal of the fence and the claim for delivery of land, the Defendants jointly have a duty to remove the Plaintiff’s wall on the ground of 0.3 square meters in part of the aforementioned “bbb”, which was constructed by breaking the Plaintiff’s land among the instant fence, and deliver 0.3 square meters in part of the said “b” to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants had a wall installed by the owner of the Plaintiff’s land and the instant road boundary. However, the Defendants constructed the instant wall, the height and thickness of which are the same as that of the Defendants to arbitrarily remove the existing wall, and the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the wall and delivery of the land is not clear, thereby making it clear that the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the wall and delivery of the land constitutes an abuse of rights as an act to benefit only to the Plaintiff and to inflict pain on the Defendants.

Even if the Plaintiff voluntarily removed the existing fence, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had the right to newly build a fence by breaking part of the land owned by the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s consent (in this case, the Plaintiff does not seek removal of the entire wall of this case, but only sought removal of the part which was constructed by breaking the Plaintiff’s land among them) on the sole basis of the circumstance asserted by the Defendants, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking to remove the part of the wall which was built by breaking the Plaintiff’s land and the delivery of the land constitutes abuse of rights.

3. Determination on the claim for prohibition of interference with passage

A. On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant road was along the road and obtained a building permit. On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff around the 23th day of the same month.