1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1352 square meters in Cheongdo-gun, Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-do-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the manager of E, E, E, 1603 square meters in adjoining the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).

On May 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) performed the rearrangement work on the instant land; (b) he stored the soil set up at the entrance of the instant land at the entrance of the access road; or (c) used the F ditch adjacent to the instant land and the instant land in a smooth manner.

The defendant transferred soil used by the plaintiff to the access road to the land of this case for piling up or flating as above.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) stored the soil generated in the course of arranging the instant land at the entrance of the access road to the instant land; or (b) used the F ditch adjacent to the instant land and the instant land to flatize it; (c) the Defendant moved the soil used by the Plaintiff to the access road to the instant land, thereby hindering the Plaintiff from entering the instant land by using the agricultural machinery to the access road.

The Plaintiff spent 50,000 won for collecting soil that the Defendant moved as above.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 50,000 won to the plaintiff for the above collection cost as damages for infringement of ownership of the land of this case.

B. However, since the Plaintiff moved the soil used to store or flat the instant land into the instant land, whether the Defendant interfered with or infringed on the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, whether the damage incurred to the Plaintiff, whether the amount of damage was equivalent to the cost of collection, and whether the Plaintiff spent.