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

A. On November 17, 1981, the Plaintiff purchased a first house with 164 square meters above 13 square meters above 13 square meters on the land in Jeju-si, a D owner, and thereafter newly built a first house with approximately 22.4 square meters above the above land (hereinafter “second house in this case”).

B. On January 8, 2014, the Defendants owned the building site and its ground housing in Jeju-si, a land adjacent to the instant housing site, and obtained a building permit from Jeju-si, with the content of “project owner: Defendant B and Construction: Defendant B’s own construction”; and on February 3, 2014, the Defendants conducted construction works to remove the building and construct the new building from February 22, 2014, as the contract was made to G (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

C. During the construction process of the instant construction project, G knew the fact that the boundary fence of the Defendants’ land was invaded with E land at Jeju, and installed a fence on the accurate cadastral boundary line after consultation with the Plaintiff. On March 7, 2014 at the Plaintiff’s request, G packaged the instant housing into concrete packaging, and built concrete on the location of the attached drawing.

On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to the effect that the instant housing was destroyed by the instant construction work, and that there was a fluorous damage caused to the wall, and thus, the resolution method was sought. On May 22, 2014, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission submitted a written opinion from the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Construction Committee that “The instant housing should be deliberated on safety diagnosis and repair reinforcement measures, as the first 60 years have passed since the instant housing was constructed, and there was a fluorous damage to the floor and a part of the wall in the state of old age as a result of the shore survey.” On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded that consultation or arbitration should be resolved in a civil level, as it is difficult to do so.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand.