1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff constructed two detached houses (122.6m2, 2 74m2) on the ground of 846m2 in Cheongdo-gun, Cheongbuk-do (hereinafter “instant land”), one owned by himself/herself, on the ground of Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant housing on December 7, 2012.

B. The Defendant: (a) requested the Korea Cadastral Corporation to conduct a boundary restoration survey as the Plaintiff filed a civil petition that the Plaintiff occupied the 515 square meters of a road in the Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-do, the territory of the Republic of Korea adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”); (b) confirmed on June 11, 2013 that the axis and fence installed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant embankment, etc.”) violated the instant road, such as the indication of the attached drawing.

C. Accordingly, on June 17, 2013, the Defendant voluntarily removed the instant embankment, etc. by July 16, 2013, along with the boundary restoration surveying result map attached to the annexed drawing, and, if not restored by the aforementioned date, notified the Plaintiff that vicarious execution will be conducted pursuant to Article 74 of the State Property Act and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 22, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant embankment, etc. will be voluntarily removed and, if not restored until the above date, the Defendant voluntarily removed the said embankment, etc. by August 22, 2013. On September 22, 2013, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant embankment, etc. will be voluntarily removed and that it will be carried out by vicarious execution if it is not restored to its original state by the above date (the third vehicle) if it is not restored to its original state by October 1, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 5 to 7 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On June 20, 2013, the Defendant asserted by the parties. The Plaintiff rendered the instant disposition.