1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Determination as to removal of buildings and request for delivery of land

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is not a party who is not a party to the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

(2) On November 16, 1992, the Defendant acquired ownership of the instant land on November 23, 2017 through a compulsory auction procedure for real estate related to the instant land. (2) On April 23, 1983, the Defendant acquired ownership of D large scale 134 square meters in an enclosed enclosed with the instant land, and constructed a building on that ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership preservation on that ground.

3) Of the instant building, part of the instant building is 2 square meters of the part on board (A) which connects each point of the instant land indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 in sequence among the instant land (hereinafter “instant part”).

) A building is constructed above. [The evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1 to 3, each video No. 2-1 to 3, the result of the court of first instance requesting the measurement and appraisal of the enclosed branch of the Korea National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Since part of the building of this case in determining the cause of the claim was constructed and possessed on the part of the bedroomd part of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to remove the part of the crimed part of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the part of the crimed part of this case to the plaintiff.

C. 1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the building and delivery of the land constituted an abuse of rights. 2) If the exercise of the right is a subjective element of causing pain to the other party and causing damage to the other party, and there is no benefit to the other party, and if it can be viewed that such exercise of the right is objectively contrary to social order, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of rights, and the subjective requirement that the exercise of the right is for causing pain or damage to the other party can be confirmed by the objective circumstance that the exercise of the right holder’s