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

The Defendant is a right holder of 1/2 of the size of one story of the instant building 5 neighborhood living facilities (a multi-store) 76.73 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant interfered with the use of the instant store as the tenant and the user by blocking the windows of the instant store located underground while illegally using the interior stairs on the surface of 2.4m2 in the part of claim (i), 5.6m2 in the part (ii), 5.6m2 in the part (iii), and general restaurants on the surface of 12.6m2 in the surface of 12.6m2 in the part (iii).

On the premise of the claim for removal like this case, the assertion and admission of the real right or the right to claim removal should be prior to the assertion and admission of the right to claim removal. However, in this case, the plaintiff is not sufficient to assert and prove the right to claim removal in addition to the argument that the plaintiff is simply the tenant of the underground part store

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim is deemed to have been made by exercising the right to exclude interference based on the right to possess, it is established only when there is an act that interferes with the de facto control of the right to possess. The fact that the current status of the building at the time of leasing the store in this case was the same as the present is without dispute between the parties. Therefore, there is no ground to view that there was any new interference with the right to possess a building

3. According to the conclusion, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.