방해예방 및 손해배상
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1,012 square meters of land for a factory in Gangnam-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and the Defendant is the owner of 2,552 square meters of land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, Gangnam-si E (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
B. Around June 2014, the Plaintiff installed a retaining wall on the boundary of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land, and the retaining wall installed by the Plaintiff was considerably affected by the Defendant’s land.
C. From June 2014 to August 2014, the Defendant sent a certificate of content demanding the Plaintiff to restore the retaining wall installed by the Plaintiff to its original state on the ground that the retaining wall violated the boundary of the Defendant’s land. The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as the crime of causing property damage, but was not subject to disposition of non-prosecution.
[Ground of recognition] 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 14, 1, 2, 1 and 2, 1 and 2, 2 and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the result of the on-site inspection of this court in determining the claim for risk prevention measures, the height of the Defendant’s land is much different from the height of the Plaintiff’s land, and, if so, the Defendant’s soil will be likely to leak to the Plaintiff’s land. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to take measures necessary to prevent danger to the Plaintiff’s land and the Plaintiff’s land boundary.
In this regard, the defendant alleged that there was no risk of inflow of rainwater and soil into the land of the plaintiff before the plaintiff performed the construction of retaining wall, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it.
However, the plaintiff asserts in the purport of the claim that the retaining wall installed between the plaintiff and the defendant's land should be constructed as necessary for the prevention of danger. However, as seen later, the plaintiff's claim that the retaining wall installed by the plaintiff be stockpiled on the defendant's land and the removal duty is recognized. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the retaining wall should be built as necessary.