1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the matters asserted by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff, and as to the part of the claim for removal of buildings and delivery of land in the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance, the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff, etc. claimed against the Defendant constitutes an abuse of rights to claim a delivery of the part (A) of the instant building connected to the Defendant’s each point of 27, 5, 29, 28, and 27 square meters on the ground attached to the instant land, which is used as the site for the instant building, and to remove the part of the instant building located on the ground of 4 square meters connected to each point of 3, 2, 3, 3, 5, 29, 28, and 27, which is used as the site for the instant building.

B. For the purpose of determining whether the exercise of the right constitutes an abuse of the right, a subjective purpose of the exercise of the right should be to inflict pain and damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the right. In an objective view, the exercise of the right should not be deemed to violate social order. Unless it does not fall under such cases, even if the loss of the other party is significantly high than the benefit that the exercise of the right has gained by the exercise of the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the right.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da42823 delivered on June 26, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1458 delivered on May 30, 2003, etc.). In full view of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties as to the instant case; (b) there is no evidence between the parties; or (c) Gap evidence 1, Eul 1, and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) the overall purport of the pleadings as to the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the Director of the Korea Intellectual Property Office, the Korea Intellectual Property Office, the Korea Intellectual Property Office, and the Director of the Korea Intellectual Property Office, the Korea Intellectual Property Office,