The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”). The Defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to the foregoing land of Gwangju Northern-gu C large 294 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. In around 2017, the Defendant newly constructed a multi-family house with the fourth floor on the land owned by the Defendant, and installed a fence. At present, the wall owned by the Defendant was installed by breaking up the part of one square meter in the ship (i) which connects each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land owned by the Plaintiff in sequence.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the result of appraiser D's measurement and appraisal, the result of factual inquiries into the Vice Governor of Gwangju High Court of Korea's Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the fence installed on the land of this case and deliver the said land to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, at the time of constructing a multi-family house, had a retaining wall owned by the Plaintiff on the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, and the Plaintiff, while knowing that the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land partially infringed, consented to the Defendant’s installation of a wall owned by the Defendant by the Defendant, by setting a retaining wall owned by the Plaintiff as it is, and by setting a new embankment, having

One of the arguments, Eul's evidence No. 1 is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's above argument is without merit.

Next, the defendant asserts that the removal and the request for extradition of this case constitute abuse of rights, so it is only to subjectively inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damages on the other party.