1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is 2.2 million won and its corresponding to each Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the results of the court’s on-site inspection and the purport of the entire pleadings, which are the result of fact-finding on the return market for evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant.

Plaintiff

AB as a husband and wife, F resident in Seopopo City F, Plaintiff CD as the mother, and the mother resident in Seopo City G (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs’ land,” and only the index is indicated). The Defendant is the owner of H land in Seopo City and resides in it, and the Defendant is adjacent to each other, such as the picture.

The Plaintiffs used the passage route (the Plaintiff’s land was accumulated more than H land) established on the part adjacent to H land, and entered the place of residence.

However, around March 15, 2018, the Defendant pre-announced the removal of “the Plaintiff installed sewage pipes and water pipes on the H land, and used them as a passage.”

On April 25, 2018, the Defendant: (a) laid down the passage roads and embankments used by the Plaintiffs and laid down the land, thereby leaving the sewage pipe alone.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs were unable to pass normally.

On May 3, 2018, the result of the boundary restoration survey conducted on May 3, 2018, the sewage plant was located in G land which is not H land, and the passage of the plaintiffs affected H land, but most of the G land was confirmed.

Since then, the defendant restored the passage along the boundary of H land, but he temporarily he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he gets unfined and he is difficult to pass through due to cement packaging.

Nevertheless, the defendant is refusing to restore to the existing state.

As the defendant's liability for damages was recognized as to the claim for damages, the defendant thought that the plaintiffs violated their own land without a boundary restoration surveying, and removed the normal passage of the plaintiffs and did not restore the land to its original state thereafter.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs are mentally and mentally.