1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 1999, the Plaintiff owned the said land from the time when he completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 991 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Of the instant land, the Defendant occupies the following: (a) specifications 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5, 7, 9, 179 square meters inboard, and 179 square meters in order to connect 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 1, and 179

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, result of appraiser D’s appraisal, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to transfer to the Plaintiff the attached drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 179 square meters inboard, which are the part possessed by the Defendant among the land in the instant case, to the Plaintiff, and remove the housing, boiler, stairs room, shot-dok trees on the ground, which are the part possessed by the Defendant, in turn connected 1 (hereinafter “instant dispute land”).

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the instant land and building constitutes an abuse of rights or is not permissible against the principle of trust and good faith, since the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of religious facilities on the part of the land in dispute and the above E land at the time of acquiring ownership of the instant land.

However, for the purpose of exercising the right to be an abuse of the right, subjectively, the purpose of the exercise of the right is to inflict pain and damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and objectively, the exercise of the right should be deemed to be in violation of social order, and unless it does not fall under such cases, the benefit that the exercise of the right gains is more than the benefit that the person exercises the right.