1. Of the instant lawsuits, the purport of the claim for restoration to the original state and the creation of a morality is sought.

subsection (1) shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1,425 square meters in Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant occupied part of the instant land by constructing and using a stable on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant stable”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the removal of the instant stable, the delivery of the part of the land possessed by the Defendant, and the return of unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land. In the litigation proceedings, the Plaintiff’s claim was partially accepted, and the judgment became final and conclusive with the purport that the Defendant removes the said stable, and the Plaintiff shall pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,800 per month from September 1, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the part of the land possessed by the Defendant from September 1, 201

[Baju District Court Decision 2013Da20958 (Main Office), 2013Da32180 (Counterclaim) decided November 19, 2013] D.

After the above judgment was rendered, the defendant removed the above stable.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In the process of constructing the instant livestock shed, the Defendant is obligated to restore it to its original state as in the attached photo display (C) section, which is a part of the instant land, because it changed the phenomenon by embling the portion of the attached photo display (A), which is a part of the instant land, and the Plaintiff is obligated to create a 20∑ flacul in the attached photo display (b) so as not to interfere with the right to sunshine to cultivate in the said section (A).

B. The Defendant without permission to occupy part of the above land by constructing a stable on the instant land, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim by asserting prescriptive acquisition, etc. upon filing a claim for the delivery of the said part of the land. Since the Defendant committed a tort, such as failing to implement the judgment after the judgment was rendered in the first C, thereby causing mental damage to the Plaintiff, the consolation money shall be KRW 10 million.