A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 3,367 square meters in Mansan-gu, Jeonju-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Plaintiff operates a Handom (hereinafter “the Handom”) in the building on the said land. The Defendant is the owner of the D paddy-gu, 4,752 square meters in contact with the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

Plaintiff

The land is installed with a concrete retaining wall of 1.5 meters in height and 82 meters in length (hereinafter referred to as “the retaining wall of this case”) depending on the boundary line with the Defendant’s land, such as the attached drawing.

B. On April 2016, the Defendant started excavation work to build a large warehouse on the Defendant’s land. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff’s part of the Plaintiff’s land was invaded due to an error in land boundary, thereby digging up the soil of the lower part of the retaining wall of the instant case, which was collapseed by 37 meters high, and the collapse of the middle part of the retaining wall of the instant case caused soil erosion and ground subsidence (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Defendant installed, on the Defendant’s land, a retaining wall (hereinafter “Defendant’s retaining wall”) with a height of 4 meters at intervals of 3 to 4 meters from the retaining wall of this case, where the floor surface and the vertical surface of the retaining wall of this case are located at 90 degrees, where the direction of the floor surface toward the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “the Defendant’s retaining wall”). In order to prevent additional ruptures and subsidences from occurring between the retaining wall of this case and the Defendant’s retaining wall of this case, around May 2016, the Defendant installed the retaining wall of this case and the Defendant’s retaining wall of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 7, and Eul Nos. 5 (including additional numbers), each film of Gap Nos. 6 and 10, and the result of appraiser E’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant damaged the retaining wall of this case due to an incidental excavation work, and thereby prevents the plaintiff from operating the Handog for four months.