1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

On October 19, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the same day with respect to D, 665 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and the 197.63 square meters (general restaurants) of the instant building on the ground of the steel-frame structure and the instant building.

Plaintiff

With respect to E 1,706 square meters adjacent to land (hereinafter “instant land”), Defendant C, the owner of the instant land, completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 6, 2014 to Defendant B on April 3, 2013.

B. The instant land is filled up at least 1m higher than the Plaintiff’s land, and the Defendant C stated that the instant land was filled up on or around 201 when the Plaintiff owned the instant land.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Eul's statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the plaintiff's argument as to the ground for claim as to the whole purport of pleading, and the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the tort against defendant C did not obtain permission for development acts under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act at the time when the land of this case was owned, but did not obtain permission for development acts under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and set the land of this case at a height of 75 cm at a height of 1m

Defendant C did not install facilities, such as drainage channels, to prevent damage to neighboring land while constructing a stone fence on the boundary of the instant land and the Plaintiff’s land.

After Defendant C’s banking and construction, there was a high difference between the instant land and the Plaintiff’s land, and each time rainwater, earth and sand, wastes, etc. were circulated to the Plaintiff’s land where the lower land was the lower land.

Therefore, the concrete packaging of the part of the Plaintiff’s land used as the outdoor parking lot was entirely destroyed, and the Plaintiff was unable to operate the restaurant in the building because the said rainwater, etc. is circulated to the interior of the building that the Plaintiff operated the restaurant, and the remote area of the said building is corroded.

Therefore, Defendant C is the Plaintiff.