1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land on October 2, 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 2, 200.

B. On November 3, 1978, the Defendant purchased 160.7 square meters in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 6, 1978, and newly constructed a building on the above ground around 1987.

C. The Plaintiff newly built the Plaintiff’s land in 2017, and the fenced between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land was removed in the process.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land, based on the boundary surveying line on the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, agreed to the effect that “I would not cooperate in the construction of the Plaintiff’s building unless a fence is installed like the existing one.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff stockpiled the instant fence based on the line connecting the Plaintiff’s appraisal map 2 and 5.

However, it is difficult to find out whether the wall of this case was installed in the same location as the wall in the past.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 and 6, each entry of evidence 5 and 6, the result of a request for surveying appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that "the defendant occupies the land of this case by piling up the wall of this case on the plaintiff's land without permission," and that "the defendant is obligated to remove the wall of this case and return the land of this case and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land of this case." However, as seen earlier, since the wall of this case was filled up on the plaintiff's land, it cannot be deemed that the defendant is obligated to remove the wall of this case, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff provided the defendant with free use and profit-making free of charge. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

3. On June 4, 1987, the defendant constructed a new building on the defendant's land and constructed a fence between the plaintiff's land and the land of this case.