All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order for the exercise of the right to be an abuse of the right, a subjective purpose of the exercise of the right is to inflict pain and damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the right. In an objective view, the exercise of the right should be deemed to be in violation of social order. Unless it falls under this, even if the loss of the other party is significantly high compared to the profit that the exercise of the right has gained by the exercise of the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22083, 22090, Sept. 4, 2002). Whether the exercise of the right constitutes abuse of the right should be determined based on individual and specific matters.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da27273 delivered on October 25, 1991). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court held that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for removal, etc. of each structure that intrudes the Plaintiff’s land among the Defendants’ owned by the Defendants constitutes a case where the objective of exercising the right is to cause pain and damage to the Defendants, and there is no benefit to the Plaintiff.

The defendants' defense of abuse of rights is denied because it does not constitute abuse of rights because it cannot be viewed as a violation of social order objectively.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on abuse of rights, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.