1. The Defendant caused the Plaintiff to enter into an exchange contract with respect to 104 square meters in Sungsung-si, the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with the beginning of 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. ① The Defendant’s ownership of KRW 973 square meters in E in Sung-si, ② 43 square meters in Flusung City, ③ Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Da 104 square meters, ④ G G Do Do si si si si si si, ⑤ 104 square meters in si si si si si si si si si si si 6 square meters in si si si si si si si si si

(hereinafter referred to as “A” or “I” in sequence. B

원고와 피고는 2015년 초경 토지의 활용성을 높이기 위해 원고 소유의 ⑤토지와 피고 소유의 ③토지를 교환하기로 약정하였고(이하 ‘이 사건 교환계약’), 피고는 이 사건 교환계약의 내용대로 별지 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉢, ㉧, ㉦의 각 점을 연결한 선을 따라 축대를 세우고, ㉠, ㉣의 각 점을 연결한 선에 연두색 철제정문을 설치하였다.

C. On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff requested and conducted a boundary restoration survey on land ① and 6. As a result, the stable price established by the Defendant was found to have infringed upon the parts connected to the issues of the Plaintiff’s

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to set up the said axiss and Section 4 in line with the boundary of the land, and the Defendant refused to comply therewith, and the Plaintiff installed a steel-net fence in line with the boundary of the land.

E. Based on the premise that the instant exchange contract is valid, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a provisional disposition to remove the said steel gate by asserting that the obstructing the Defendant’s passage and business by installing a steel gate on the boundary of the land is against the good faith principle and constitutes an abuse of rights (U.S. District Court 2016Kahap10187). The said court conducted a survey to restore the boundary of the land (i) and (ii) on September 8, 2016, and (iii) on conducting a survey to restore the boundary of the land, and (iv) on the part of the Defendant, (vi) on the boundary of the land, and on the boundary of the land, (iii) on the land (f) on the flu