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

A. D located on Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and E ground (hereinafter “instant building”) is a building of the size of the second and fifth above ground level underground.

B. As to the instant building, on January 10, 2003, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future of the Plaintiff, the owner of the said building.

C. Since September 5, 2006, with respect to 501 of the instant building, the transfer registration for ownership was completed on July 6, 2006, on the ground of sale; the transfer registration for ownership was completed on August 25, 2011; and the transfer registration for ownership was completed on June 27, 2014 in the future of the Defendant on May 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment on the assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Defendant, without any title, infringed the Plaintiff’s ownership by constructing a provisional building constructed with a height of 2.5m high on the fifth floor of the instant building on the 5th floor of the instant building without any title, such as (4), (5), (7), (6), and (4) a building constructed with a height of 2.5m high on the 7.5m square meters connected each point in sequence, and (2) the Defendant is obligated to remove the said provisional building. Furthermore, as the Defendant used the underground parking lot of the instant building, the said parking lot was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s damage and paid KRW 5,00,000 for waterproof and repair works, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) First of all, it is insufficient to find out that the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 with respect to the removal claim are sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant constructed the provisional building claimed by the Plaintiff without a title or infringed upon the Plaintiff’s ownership. Since there is no other evidence to support this, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. 2) The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the repair cost for the underground parking lot solely on the basis of each statement in the evidence Nos. 5 and 7 with respect to the monetary payment claim.