1. All the claims filed by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) added by this court are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff partly removed the retaining wall as its principal lawsuit, delivered its site, and filed a claim for damages (defensive materials), and the Defendant, upon counterclaim, filed a claim for removal of the ground object and the claim for the delivery of the site.

The court of first instance accepted both the removal of a retaining wall and its site request and the defendant's counterclaim among the plaintiff's principal claim, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages.

On the other hand, only the plaintiff appealed against the dismissal part of the principal claim, and then this court reduced the amount of consolation money claim, while adding the claim of KRW 4,310,410 to the claim of KRW 2,310 and property damage.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the claims 2 to 4 of the principal lawsuit.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 512 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant land”) and its ground house. The Defendant is the owner of F forest land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land”) and G 447 square meters in size (hereinafter “the instant land”) and the owner of the instant land.

B. Around May 18, 1981, the Plaintiff’s RI acquired the ownership of the land No. 1 of this case and owned a single-story detached house not registered on the ground, and he stockpiled a stone shed on the boundary of the land No. 1 of this case and the land No. 2 and 3.

C. Around May 2012, the Defendant arranged the following drawings among the land No. 2 in the instant case as a ginseng field by organizing the surface of the site, and used them as a ginseng field. The area was filled up at a height of up to one meter and performed land reclamation works (hereinafter “construction works on land No. 2” and the area of land No. 2 in the instant case as indicated in the reference map.

In addition, based on the stone embankment accumulated on the land No. 1 and the third land boundary of this case, the defendant I filled up the land No. 3 of this case at a height of stone, and packaging concrete on the tin embankment and outer wall, and below the retaining wall.