1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 387 square meters prior to C in macro-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and is the owner of D, an inspector located in the vicinity.

B. Of the instant land, there is a concrete structure (hereinafter “instant structure”) on the ground that the Defendant installed in the course of performing construction works for one order and on the ground that the part (A) section 28 square meters connects each point of the attached Table 12, 13, 14, 15, and 12, among the instant land.

【Reasons for Recognition】 1-1 of evidence A, the result of the survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to remove the instant structure and deliver the said land, since the Defendant, without permission, did not contract the retaining wall installation works to the Defendant, but did not have contracted the installation works for one order, by installing the instant structure on the instant land without permission, and illegally occupied the said land.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the instant structure was neglected due to the cancellation of the instant contract upon unilaterally requesting the suspension of construction on September 7, 201, on the grounds that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to prepare construction cost on September 7, 2011, while the Defendant was performing construction works after being awarded a contract for the installation of a DNA order from the Plaintiff. The instant structure was based on the contract for the installation of a single order between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant did not illegally

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff seeks removal of the above structure and delivery of the site to the defendant under the premise that the right to dispose of the structure of this case exists to the defendant, and first, we examine whether the plaintiff contracted to the defendant for the installation of D D order.

B. The authenticity of the entire document is presumed as the Plaintiff’s seal impression No. 1 is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute.

As to this, the plaintiff is the above document.