1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Requests for removal of obstacles;

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, on March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of one-half shares of each of the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant land shares”). The Defendant owned the instant obstacles on each of the instant land and exclusively occupied each of the instant land, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right to use and benefit from each of the instant land based on the Plaintiff’s co-ownership right.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to claim the removal of disturbance under Article 214 of the Civil Act against the Defendant based on his/her co-ownership right on each of the instant land (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da287522, May 21, 2020). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant obstacles to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) ① The land of this case is divided by the lawsuit for partition of co-owned property in the future, and even if the plaintiff suffered losses due to the plaintiff's failure to use each of the land of this case, it can be resolved by the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. Thus, removal of obstacles of this case constitutes abuse of rights as social and economic waste. ② Even if the plaintiff's request for removal of obstacles of this case is accepted, the plaintiff is obligated to pay only KRW 90 million out of the purchase price of each of the land of this case to the defendant, and pay the defendant the additional payment of the remaining amount of KRW 10 million to the defendant. This is also related to the defendant's obligation to remove the obstacles of this case. 2) The decision of this constitutes abuse of rights to exercise ownership against the defense of abuse of rights.