1. The Defendant shall keep in turn each point of Attached Table 10, 45, 37, 38, 10 out of the land size of B 4,142 square meters to the Plaintiff at the time of Innju.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff owns the land indicated in the order (hereinafter in this case) and C Saemaeul Association owns 2,089 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter in this case’s adjacent land).

B. The Defendant owns an office and a toilet built on the two sides of the land adjacent to the instant land, and the part constructed on the instant land is a part of 18 square meters on board (D) indicating the appraisal of the order among the said land.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings (including evidentiary number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may seek the exclusion of disturbance against the Defendant who possesses the Plaintiff’s land by owning the instant erosion facility.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant erosion facility to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim was against the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, considering the following: (a) the instant intrusion facility was installed for public interest purposes; (b) the removal of the instant intrusion facility was de facto impossible; and (c) the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant intrusion facility and acquired the ownership of the instant land.

In light of the circumstances such as the Defendant’s assertion, even if such circumstance is acknowledged, in view of the following: (a) the area of the facilities of the instant bed crime is not small, and the said bed difficult to freely pass within the land of the instant bed; and (b) the exercise of the right of this case only causes pain and damage to the Defendant; and (c) it is difficult to view the Defendant’s assertion that it violates social order.