1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 526 square meters (hereinafter “the land No. 1 of this case”) prior to Naju-si, and the Defendant is the owner of D grave No. 1494 square meters adjacent to the land No. 1 of this case (hereinafter “the land No. 2 of this case”).

B. The Defendant, around March 5, 2013, set up 7 boundary marks on the boundary of each of the instant land, and removed 4 of them around August 2014.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 for a crime of border invasion.

(Seoul District Court Decision 2015Gohap340 decided June 24, 2015). (C)

The Defendant removed the boundary table as in the preceding paragraph and installed iron pents on the boundary of each land of this case, and part of the pents was installed on the ground of the land of this case.

The Defendant removed the fences installed on the ground of the instant land No. 1, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, before the closing date of the pleadings of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant cut off the land No. 1 in the course of installing a pents as stated in Section 1(c). As such, the Defendant is obligated to dump the instant land at the boundary of each of the instant land in order to prevent damage caused by soil erosion and sand outflow, etc. of the said land, and to remove the tree roots of the said No. 1 land and to make a flat work.

However, since the Defendant did not perform such obligation, it is obligated to compensate for the amount of KRW 6,700,000 (the cost of piling up stone at KRW 6,250,000 (the cost of flatizing land at KRW 6,250,000), which is the property damage suffered by the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant is obliged to pay KRW 5,000,000 as compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff by performing acts identical to 1-B and 3-B.

B. The evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant cut off the land No. 1 of this case, and there is no other evidence, and otherwise, he saw a stone shed to the Defendant on the boundary of each land of this case.