beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In order for a part of the exercise of the right to be used to constitute an abuse of the right, a subjective purpose of the exercise of the right must be to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict losses on the other party, and there should be no profits on the other party. In an objective view, the exercise of the right should be viewed as violating social order. Unless it does not fall under such a case, even if the other party's loss is considerably high than the profits that the exercise of the right has gained by the exercise of the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the right. Whether the exercise of the right constitutes abuse of the right should be determined based on individual and specific matters.
(2) On February 14, 2003, each of the houses of this case, including the instant land and the possession of state forest roads, is against other land beyond its original site, and the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence and evidence No. 1, namely, ① the wood stack roof housing of this case (29.75 square meters), among each of the instant houses, is a single-story building constructed around 1920, around 1920, around 1967, and ② the Defendant B’s written statement (Evidence No. 1). However, even according to the Defendant B’s written statement, each of the instant houses, including not only the instant land, but also the possession of state forest roads, is over its original site, and ③ the part of the instant land, which was invaded, cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s future utility or utility is not attributable to the Plaintiff.