All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is the legitimate defense to protect the Defendant’s property rights that may arise from new construction in violation of the relevant statutes.

2. Determination

A. To recognize a certain act as a legitimate defense, the act must be reasonable to protect the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest, as it is necessary to protect the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Therefore, the legitimate defense against an unlawful legitimate infringement is not recognized

The issue of whether the defense act is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, method of infringement, level of completion of infringement act, and type and degree of legal interest infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2168, Mar. 15, 2017). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) the M&A obtained permission from the relevant administrative agency to build a building project, (ii) the owner had the victim perform the construction work of a fence to remove the existing building, and (iii) neighboring residents, including the Defendants, installed a banner, banner at around January 1, 2013 and around February 2, 2013 in order to prevent the construction of the new building site, and the M&A cooperative installed a new fence, which interferes with the construction of a new fence, such as the construction of a new fence, etc., and (iv) the victim and the victim applied for a provisional disposition.