1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Appointed Party).

3...

1. The scope of the judgment of this Court is limited to the part against the defendant and the designated parties among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the scope of the judgment of this Court is limited to the part against the defendant and the designated parties, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the rejection of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

3. Parts of the model repair;

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Defendant asserts that, as long as the instant conciliation provided that the Defendant shall pay KRW 10 million as a penalty for nonperformance of the Defendant’s duty of removal of unauthorized houses, the Defendant cannot claim damages by taking into account the instant lawsuit as a matter of non-performance of the duty of removal.

However, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is a claim for damages due to tort caused by ownership infringement, and is different from the penalty for breach of contract, which is set up a sanction against nonperformance in order to secure performance of obligation, in addition to the requirements, effect, and purpose of the penalty for breach of contract.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

B. Determination on the merits of the case is that the act of maintaining a building without permission on the land owned by the owner of the adjoining land does not themselves constitute an illegal act against the owner of the adjoining land. However, the owner of the land has a duty to take appropriate measures so as not to obstruct the use of adjoining land or inflict pain on the neighbor’s living (Article 217(1) of the Civil Act), and whether the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted level under social norms, the nature and degree of the damage, the nature of the benefit from damage, and the attitude of harmful act.