1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor with each point indicated in the annexed Form 1 and 2 among the area of 105 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2017, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) purchased from the Plaintiff who withdrawn on October 13, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 15, 2012, Ulsan-gu C& 105 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of the building located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and the building on the ground located in Ulsan-gu and the land immediately adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

C. The boundary of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land is a line connected in order to each point indicated in Appendix 1 No. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The Defendant, who intrudes the boundary with the Plaintiff’s land, installed a concrete block fence on the line connecting each point in the table Nos. 1, 2, and 6 of the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, and 6. Among them, the fence installed on the part connecting each point in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 are the parts on the ship connected each point in the annexed drawing Nos. 2, 1, 2,

The width of the above fence is 10 cm(2 cm between 4 and 4 cm) and 12 cm wide (12 cm between 1 and 2).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images as to Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 10, 11, 15 through 18, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the first instance appraiser F, the fact inquiry conducted by the first instance appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the fenced with the fenced with the plaintiff's land (the block fenced on the line connecting each point listed in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1) attached Form 2 with the fenced with the plaintiff's land and connected each point in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1).

(The above fences are mostly constructed against the plaintiff's land, and they cannot be seen as ordinary boundary marks or fences stipulated under Article 237 of the Civil Act. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith, but the above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The conclusion is that the intervenor's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is ordered to accept it.