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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a multi-household apartment house for the fourth floor building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”); Defendant B is the owner of the fourth apartment house located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “instant apartment building”); and Defendant C is the building owner who was awarded a contract for the construction of the instant building.

B. The Defendant building of this case was constructed adjacent to the southwest of the instant building as a multi-family housing of the fourth floor size, and Defendant B obtained approval for the use of the instant Defendant building on August 26, 2014, and completed registration of ownership preservation in its name on September 25, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. According to the new construction of the Defendant building in this case, the Plaintiff suffered infringement on the sunshine, view, and privacy previously enjoyed by the Plaintiff, and the occurrence of damages, such as internal and external cracks, drainage pipe, water leakage, water leakage, and dyeh, etc. caused by noise, vibration, scattering, dust dust, and dust generated at the time of new construction, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim as part of the damages compensation.

B. On October 2014, the Defendants in collusion with the competent authority in violation of relevant legal provisions, such as the Building Act, and extended the 11st and fourth floors of the Defendant’s building and the 401st and fourth floors to a prefabricated-type panel, and had a fireproof structure for the safety of the building. However, the Defendants were to construct the outer wall of the first and fourth floors of the instant Defendant’s building with the temporary wall of the st and fourth floors, rather than a reinforced concrete wall, and to remove it and expand it by illegally in violation of the separation distance limits, thereby causing damage to the safety of the Plaintiff’s life and property. Accordingly, the Defendants did so.