beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.08.17 2017가단114816

옹벽철거 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant installed a retaining wall on the boundary line connecting the Plaintiff’s ownership, i.e., the attached drawings between the 15m2 and 776m2, Sincheon-si, the C, the 448m2, and the 776m2, which are owned by the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as "the retaining wall of this case". The retaining wall of this case constitutes not the wall but the building "Article 242 of the Civil Act" but the building should be constructed at a distance of not less than 50 cm from the boundary line.

However, since the defendant is constructed on the boundary line in violation of this, the defendant is obligated to remove the retaining wall of this case.

B. The Defendant installed pumps facilities within 50 cm from the boundary line in order to discharge sewage (sewage) generated from a building constructed on the D ground of Overcheon City into sewage pipelines connected to E.

(hereinafter “instant pumps”). However, the instant pumps continue to discharge engine noise and cause damage to the Plaintiff in order to acquire sewage into high sewage pipes.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to remove the pumps of this case for the prevention of noise.

2. Determination:

A. We can not conclude that the height of the retaining wall of this case exceeds 2 meters, or that the retaining wall of this case constitutes “building” under Article 242 of the Civil Code, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(P) Even if the height of the retaining wall of this case exceeds 2 meters, according to Article 118(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the retaining wall of this case can be constructed on the boundary line of the site, even if the height exceeds 2 meters. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which is premised on the premise that the retaining wall of this case constitutes a building, is without merit, is examined further.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant installed the instant pumps for the discharge of sewage.