1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is residing in his own Government-si D ground multi-family house (including the fourth floor thereof) and the Defendant operates the telecom in his own building owned by the Defendant E at his own Government-si, and the building owned by the Defendant or the building attached thereto or the structure installed in a building adjoining each of the above land boundary. Pursuant to Article 242 of the Civil Act, the Defendant shall maintain a distance of 50 cm between the toilet building and the land boundary pursuant to Article 242 of the Civil Act. The Defendant shall remove or remove all of the wooden panel removed from the boundary fence installed by the Plaintiff on the land, the erop pumps in the roof, the laund-ray support unit, the laund-ray, and the erop attached to the boundary fence installed on the part of the Defendant of the boundary fence.

When all removals occur, new fences will be constructed according to the boundary of the land.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Of the Plaintiff’s purport of the Plaintiff’s claim, the part that “the construction of a building, which is a construction provision near the boundary line under Article 242 of the Civil Act, ought to be kept at a distance above half the boundary line,” which is the construction provision near the boundary line, is to the effect that the Defendant would follow the construction of a building without keeping a distance exceeding 50 cm from the boundary line between the land for the ground (f) and the land for the E-ground in the Gu Government City of the above Gu Government, and thus, to relocate or remove the violating building by complying with the said provision. However, whether all or part of the building owned by the Defendant did not secure this distance or its location and scope cannot be specified.

B. Of the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim, “a structure installed in a fence shall be removed and the main time shall be avoided.”

“The part” appears to the effect that the Plaintiff installed the Defendant’s structure at the fence constructed on the boundary of the F land and the G land at the time of the Government-si, and that it should be removed. However, the description alone is a structure against the Defendant in detail.