1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

A. The attached appraisal map No. 26, 27, 5, 6, among the land size of 136 square meters in Masung-si.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a building owned by Nonparty E (the husband of the Plaintiff, Nonparty E, the husband of the Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “E-owned land”) and a building located on F’s ground (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned building”). The Defendant is a person who shares the land owned by Nonparty G and 1/2 shares each of the land adjacent to the above D land (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.’s land”; and the Defendant is a person who shares the land owned by each of the Defendant, etc. and the building owned by the Defendant, etc.).

B. A wall has been installed for a long time on the part of the boundary where the land owned by E and the land owned by the Defendant, etc. adjoining the land, but around 2013, the Plaintiff removed the said wall in the course of remodeling and repairing the building owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant offered that the Plaintiff’s living room brought from the Plaintiff’s main window constituted an infringement of private life, such as taking the Defendant’s living room into the Defendant. On July 2013, the Plaintiff installed a cement block with a height of 1.7 meters, length of 8.5 meters, and width of 15cm (hereinafter “instant wall”).

C. Since then, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff-owned building and the wall of this case remodeled the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Defendant, etc., and requested the removal thereof. The Defendant, who did not take any particular measure, removed the wall of this case on May 9, 2017, and written sponsing the frame on the roof and the wall of the Plaintiff-owned building against the spart line.

In addition, around July 2017, the defendant prevented the above windows by using the method of using the plaintiff's main window to stand the board (after that, the defendant was unable to take up the above window after deducting the plaintiff's feet, but the above window frame remains at present). Meanwhile, while the defendant et al. and the building owned by the plaintiff and the building owned by the plaintiff were engaged in string, the plaintiff's excellent drainage pipes (the home line box; hereinafter referred to as "the excellent drainage pipe of this case") installed on the plaintiff's outer wall of the building while conducting string work between the building owned by the plaintiff and the building owned by the plaintiff are conducting string work.