1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,619,670 as well as to the plaintiff on June 2017.

The reasons why the court of this case, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are stated in the part concerning the plaintiff and the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as that concerning the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the reasons why the court of first instance is mentioned in the following paragraph (2). The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is to regard "in designated place"

The contents of the judgment of the court of first instance, 12, 5 to 9, are as follows.

“B The part of “from October 30, 2017, the approval date for the use of the instant officetel, which appears to have been completed, is deemed to have been completed” in the first instance judgment 21 to 6-7th, “The real estate owned by the Plaintiff appears to have been constructed with a minimum separation distance.”

From June 30, 2017, the completion of the external structural construction of the instant officetel (i.e., the “Supervision Date,” attached to the result of the inquiry into the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City,” recognizing the fact that construction works on the 2nd floor rail of the instant officetel was conducted on June 30, 2017.

Therefore, from around that time, it can be seen that the number of years in the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff was cut off due to the construction of the instant officetel.

) The term “this judgment” in the first instance judgment 21st 8th is regarded as “the first instance judgment”.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Since the judgment of the first instance is partially unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the first instance is partially accepted and the judgment of the first instance is modified as above.