1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns a land of 251m2 (hereinafter “C”) in Gwangjuyang-si, and the Defendant owns a land of 363m2 (hereinafter “D land”), which is a neighboring land.

There are separate houses in each of the above lands, and a fence is installed between them.

B. From among the Plaintiff’s land C, the part on the part of the Defendant’s wife of the housing constructed on D’s land is one square meter in the part of “A” connected in sequence to 2, 3, 7, and 2 in the order of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the part on the wife of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1-2, 3, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff of the parties asserted that as the owner of C's land, the plaintiff sought the removal of the defendant's house and the delivery of the above part of possession. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim constitutes an abuse of rights.

B. Determination 1) According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the defendant's house, etc. installed in the part of the wife of this case and deliver the above land to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances. 2) Where the exercise of the right is intended to cause pain to the other party, and there is no benefit to the other party, and it can be viewed that there is an objective violation of social order, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of right, and the subjective requirement for exercising the right can be confirmed based on objective circumstances where the exercise of the right is deemed to lack of legitimate interest of the right holder, and whether the exercise of the right constitutes an abuse of right should be determined based on individual and specific cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da79378, Feb. 25, 2010).