1. The Defendant marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 66, and 1 of the attached drawings among the land size of 625 square meters for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of 625 square meters of Macheon-si B ditch (hereinafter “instant land”) in the public sale procedure conducted on February 22, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 4, 2012.

B. However, from time to time, a ditch with concrete material is installed on the (A) part of the ship, which connects each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, which is set up by the Defendant, from time to time, the center of the instant land, and the (a) part of Section 8,000 square meters (hereinafter “the instant ditch”).

C. The ditches of this case are located at the point of 2.5km at the bottom of the ditches between the 3.5km section and the passage of the point.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2 through 4, Gap's 7, 8, Eul's 6's descriptions, images, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition of the defendant's obligation to remove the ditch, the defendant constructed the ditch of this case on the land of this case owned by the plaintiff without permission, thereby hindering the plaintiff's exercise of ownership. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to remove the ditch of this case in response to the plaintiff's claim for the removal of obstruction of ownership under Article 214 of the Civil Code, unless the plaintiff's permission, etc. is asserted and

B. The Defendant alleged that the construction of the instant ditch was approved by the landowner at the time of the construction of the instant ditch. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant ditch is an abuse of rights is an abuse of rights. The entire ditch including the instant ditch is installed from the colonial City to the colonial City, thereby reaching 100 shares of farmland benefit area, and the farmland benefiting from the said ditch reaches 17 farmer’s 10 shares of 10 shares, which cannot be closed or removed. The Plaintiff, knowing the above point, presented a change in the conditions that cannot be solved by acquiring and disposing of the instant land, and finally, did not constitute an acquisition by public auction each year.