beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment concerning the facts and the cause of the claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the second 6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance "307/1507" is deemed "307/1537", and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
2. In addition, the defendant purchased the land of this case with the knowledge that there was a significant part of the above detached house at the time when the plaintiffs purchased the land of this case, and requested removal of buildings and delivery of land to resolve the dispute between the plaintiffs' Han-do business with the defendant in relation to the plaintiffs' Han-do business, and the benefits that the plaintiffs would gain from the plaintiffs' request for removal of buildings and delivery of land did not exist, while the defendant suffered serious damages, so the plaintiffs' claim for removal of buildings and delivery of land constitutes
However, for the purpose of exercising rights to be an abuse of rights, the objective of exercising the rights is to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the rights. In an objective view, the exercise of the rights should be deemed to be in violation of social order. Barring such a case, even if there is a significant damage to the other party than the benefit that the exercise of the rights gains through the exercise of the rights, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da38592, 38608, Jan. 16, 2013). The defendant's assertion alone does not constitute abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da38592, 38608, Jan. 16, 2013). The defendant's defense of this case cannot be deemed as abuse of rights,
3. Conclusion, the defendant.