beta
Text
1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, and 1, among the land area of 66.1 square meters in Gunsan-si.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a store and a house on the ground of the pertinent land in Dosan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and 66.1 square meters, and the Defendant is the owner of a neighborhood living facility and a house located on E and above land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. Of the instant land, the instant building was built with a part (A) of 0.9 square meters connected in sequence to each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, and 1, among the instant land.
(hereinafter) In this case, the above-mentioned part of the building is referred to as “the part of the building in this case,” and the land in this case is referred to as “the part of the building in this case.” 【The part of the building in this case’s land in this case’s land. 【The ground for recognition ] There is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the result of the request for measurement and appraisal of the President of the
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant owned the instant building and occupied the part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the part of the instant building, which sought the exclusion of interference based on ownership, and deliver the part of the instant land to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument is limited to 0.9 square meters of the instant building, and the Plaintiff has filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of causing pain to the Defendant and causing damage, despite the risk that the removal of the said part would result in the collapse of the building, so the Plaintiff’s claim in this case constitutes an abuse of rights. 2) If the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to judgment may be deemed an abuse of the right, the purpose of exercising the right is to cause pain to the other party and to inflict damage on the other party, and it should be objectively a case where there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right to exercise the right.