1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owns the land F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. From May 18, 2007 to August 14, 2007, the Defendant performed the “E Repair Facility Restoration” and installed the instant drainage channel on the land owned by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 4 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff had become aware of the installation work of the drainage of this case, while the plaintiff's argument is already underway with the installation work of the drainage of this case on the land owned by the plaintiff, and he/she has been forced to cooperate.

However, unlike the survey conducted in 2005 as a result of the survey in 2014, the location of the land owned by the plaintiff was changed, and the current status of the land used before that was confirmed to be owned by another person, and the land owned by the plaintiff became divided into three parts due to the drainage of this case, which was installed by blocking its use.

The defendant, without the plaintiff's consent, established the drainage of this case and infringed on the plaintiff's ownership.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone occupied the multiple of the instant case, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s possession was converted to the Defendant due to the Defendant’s instant multiple system due to the construction work.

Even if the defendant's possession is recognized, it is difficult to view that it interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership on the land owned by the plaintiff.

1 The plaintiff's assertion itself is to identify and cooperate with the defendant's restoration work late.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff requested only the restoration for passage to the Defendant on the premise of the installation of the drainage channel in the instant case.