소유권에 기한 방해제거 및 위자료
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around 1990, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s ground house D (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s housing”). Around February 2014, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the C-Ground housing adjacent to the south of the Plaintiff’s housing (hereinafter “Defendant’s housing”).
B. From the beginning of 2015, the Defendant has performed the repair work for moving into the Defendant’s housing.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, images of Gap evidence 1 to 20, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the existing drainage pipe pipe of the Defendant’s housing installed towards the Plaintiff’s housing at the time of the repair work, and the Defendant’s housing’s length section was replaced to a larger than 20cm, the Plaintiff’s housing site was invaded by the airspace above the Plaintiff’s housing site. As a result, rainwater directly fallen into the Plaintiff’s housing or its site from the pipe or machine of the drainage pipe of the Defendant’s housing at the time of the said repair work.
In addition, in the process of the above repair work, if the defendant causes noise, dust, etc. within a studio and stores construction materials, etc. on the road, the defendant infringed on the plaintiff's house without permission and damaged the pents of the plaintiff's house.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to take appropriate measures, such as removal, in order to prevent the plaintiff's damage caused by the pipe and pipe of the drainage hole of the defendant's housing, and to pay five million won as compensation for mental material damage.
B. The video images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20 are not enough to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, it is significant in this court that the Plaintiff’s accessory facilities, such as septic tanks, taps, fences, etc., installed in the Plaintiff’s housing, intrudes the site of the Defendant’s housing, and some of the types of damage alleged by the Plaintiff are within the scope of tolerance limits under the neighboring relationship.