1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In 202, E.C. 202, E.C. 202 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owns the Plaintiff’s father’s incidental D, and 302, E.C. 302, E.C. (hereinafter “Defendant-owned housing”) owns the Defendant’s housing and resides therein.

B. The Plaintiff is residing in the instant house since November 2007.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought the implementation of water leakage prevention works, such as the purport of the claim by exercising the right of claim for removal of interference based on the ownership of the instant house, since the Plaintiff, inasmuch as water flows out from the sewerage pipelines of the Defendant-owned housing, water flows out into the toilet tent of the instant housing, and malodor flows out, etc.

However, the facts that the Plaintiff owned the instant house are identical to those recognized as seen earlier, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant house cannot be accepted without further review.

(q) As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s house continues to enjoy water from the sewerage pipeline as of the date of the closing of argument in this case.