The defendant shall keep in turn each point of the attached Table 22,23,24,25,22, among the 3,515 square meters in Chuncheon City, the plaintiff among the 3,515 square meters in order.

The Defendant’s possession of the part on the instant dispute by installing a sewage pipe (hereinafter “instant sewage pipe”) on the underground surface of the part of 3 square meters in the attached sheet No. 22, 23, 24, 25, and 22 attached hereto (hereinafter “instant land”) among the land owned by the Plaintiff, Cheongcheon-si, Macheon-si (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; and (b) the entry of the evidence No. 1 and 5; and (c) the entire purport of the argument as a result of the commission of the survey appraisal by the court.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the sewage pipes of this case and deliver the land in the dispute of this case to the plaintiff seeking the removal of interference based on ownership.

The Defendant asserted that the instant sewage museum was installed with the permission from D, the former owner of the instant land. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant obtained the permission from D. Furthermore, even if the ownership of the instant land was transferred from D to the Plaintiff, so long as the ownership of the instant land was transferred from D, the Defendant is required to obtain the new landowner’s permission to use the land or to acquire the limited real right (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da44285, Nov. 23, 2006; 2000Da65246, Feb. 23, 2001). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim in this case constitutes abuse of rights, the evidence alone presented by the defendant is sufficient to recognize that the purpose of the plaintiff's exercise of rights is to give pain to the defendant and inflict damages on the defendant, and that there is no benefit to the plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da44285 Decided November 23, 2006), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion in this part is not acceptable

If so, the plaintiff.