1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seo-gu Seoul land in Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant land 2”).

B. From Sep. 2008 to Jan. 2, 2009, the Defendant: (a) planted trees, etc. on the land of this case from Sep. 1, 2008 to Jan. 1, 2009; and (b) tried to have the utility of the land of this case by planting, drilling, and drilling as agricultural crops.

C. On June 2013, 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily removed strings installed by the Plaintiff on the instant land No. 1 and removed the nets.

In order to use the instant land No. 2 as a parking lot on October 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) covered part of the instant land No. 1 by packaging concrete on the surrounding land, including the red posts, which were the boundaries of the instant land No. 1, 2, and Gwangju Seo-gu and F land; and (b) making it impossible to recognize the said boundaries.

E. On September 4, 2014, the Gwangju District Court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 1,500,000 against the Defendant’s act of destroying and damaging property and causing boundary as stated in the Defendant’s above B through D, which became final and conclusive around that time.

F. Meanwhile, in the course of the criminal conciliation conducted at the investigation stage of the instant case on July 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant criminal conciliation”), the Defendant paid KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiff for the use of the instant land as a parking lot for a period of two months.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, such as property damage, arbitrarily used the land No. 1 of this case, and removed boundary marks installed by the Plaintiff on the land No. 1 of this case, and performed concrete packaging to make the boundary impossible.

The defendant shall restore the boundary table at the time of the criminal conciliation of this case to the original state, and only part of the boundary table installed on the boundary of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case shall be installed again, and the road side of the land No.