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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On January 24, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the inheritance due to the division as of April 2, 1982, with respect to the land of Suwon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The defendant owns the building D ground (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") adjacent to the land of this case in Busan, Suwon-gu.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the front side of the instant building violates the separation distance restriction under Article 242(1) of the Civil Act, since the Plaintiff’s front side of the instant building immediately cut down the boundary line of the instant land, and the Defendant is unable to use the instant land as a passage, and thus, is using the instant land without permission for the first floor, by blocking the part of the instant building from using it as a passage.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,104,000 as a total of the usage fees due to passage, etc. from April 2007 to April 2017, and annual usage fees of KRW 144,000 for the instant land until the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

B. Determination 1) According to the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8, it can be acknowledged that the building of this case is almost adjacent to the boundary of the land of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the person who constructed the building of this case by violating the separation distance limitation under Article 242 (1) of the Civil Act is the defendant. Furthermore, even if the defendant had contacted the building of this case with the land of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the damage was caused to the plaintiff, even if the defendant had contacted the building of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the damage was caused to the plaintiff. 2), and the following circumstances, i.e., the land of this case, the area of the vacant land of this case is 3 square meters.