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

A. On the ground of Geumcheon-gu Seoul O and P land, the Defendants divided ownership (hereinafter “instant loan”).

C. In contact with the above O land, there are Q and buildings owned by the Plaintiff, Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q and its ground.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In around 1995, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the access road entered into the underground parking lot (hereinafter “the access road of this case”) was made by raising about 2 meters, without installing a retaining wall construction to be essential, and then sealed cement packaging at a level of 2 meters away from the wall of the said Q land.

As a result, there is a dangerous condition that a wall is broken and broken, so it is necessary to construct a retaining wall which is not originally installed, and 25 million won is required at the cost.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the construction of the aforementioned wall and retaining wall after receiving the construction cost of KRW 25 million from the Defendants.

B. Even if the defect attached to the instant access road is located in the access road because it was not necessary to construct the access road in question, the Plaintiff, the owner of the adjacent access road, can request the Defendants, the owner of the access road of this case, to perform the construction of the access road by specifying the contents of the access road construction, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, as the owner of the adjacent access road, can seek payment equivalent to the construction cost of the retaining wall in advance.

Of course, if a wall on the above Q land is owned by the Plaintiff and a part of the wall was damaged due to the defect of the access road in this case, the Plaintiff may claim damages equivalent to the cost of repairing the wall. However, in view of the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it does not appear to have sought payment of the cost of repairing the wall independently from the cost of the retaining wall construction on the instant access road.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3...