1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant paid KRW 1,874,173 to the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 1997, the Plaintiffs inherited and owned 1/3 shares each of the instant land of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 529 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. In the early 1980s, the Defendant occupied and used a metropolitan shopping museum located in a metropolitan shopping museum (hereinafter referred to as “instant metropolitan shopping museum”) since the installation of a metropolitan shopping museum (hereinafter referred to as “instant metropolitan shopping museum”) in which part of the instant land was invaded with underground sections of 3.86 square meters in the line connected with each of the instant items, among the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant metropolitan shopping museum”) in the process of laying a metropolitan shopping museum in the vicinity of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, evidence No. 1, result of survey and appraisal by appraiser E, purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the removal of wide-area water pipelines and request for the delivery of land

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the wide-area water supply pipes of this case to the plaintiffs and deliver the part of the land, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to remove the metropolitan water pipelines of this case and to claim the transfer of the part of the land constitutes abuse of rights.

If the exercise of the right is only to cause pain to the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and it can be objectively deemed that it violates the social order, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of right, and the subjective requirement for the exercise of the right can be confirmed by objective circumstances shown by the exercise of the right holder's legitimate interest, and the issue of which exercise of the right constitutes abuse of right should be determined by individual and specific cases.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da20819, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is intended.