A. Plaintiff A is the owner of approximately 336.9 square meters (hereinafter “F”) in Sacheon-si D, and Plaintiff B is the owner of the above F-ground building (hereinafter “G”), the husband of Plaintiff B, who completed registration of preservation of ownership on April 9, 1998, and operates the automobile maintenance business in the above building.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the above ground building, the registration of ownership preservation of which was completed on December 15, 1997, in Sacheon-si, E, 392.7 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) where the instant F and the instant F are adjacent to the boundary.

C. F is at a location lower than that of the Defendant’s land, and at the boundary between F and the Defendant’s land, the fence of the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s wall”) with a length of 12.5 meters and the Defendant’s wall of 24.16 meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s wall”). On the inside of the Defendant’s wall, a fire brigade with trees planted (hereinafter “instant fire brigade”) has been installed, and there is rupture and damage on the part of the Plaintiff’s wall.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) always caused a subsidence to the lower part of the defendant's wall. Accordingly, the defendant's wall installed pressure on the lower part of the plaintiff's wall while putting the plaintiff's wall toward the lower part of the wall. Accordingly, the damage amounting to KRW 4,465,384 was incurred due to rupture on the lower part of the wall's wall. The defendant is obliged to pay the above money to the plaintiffs. Further, even if the plaintiff's wall was repaired, the defendant's wall continues to be fright up to the plaintiff's wall and is likely to collapse. Thus, it is necessary to remove part of the defendant's wall and reconstruct the part of the defendant's wall for the purpose of removing and preventing the above interference. 2) The rupture of the plaintiff's argument on the part of the plaintiff's wall is the plaintiff's warehouse building.