1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant received a donation from E on the land and its second-story housing from Busan Young-gu, Busan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

The plaintiff has previously owned the F site and the second floor of the land adjacent to the Busan Youngdo-gu, Busan.

나. 피고의 소유권취득 이전부터 그 주택 중 알루미늄샷시 구조물과 블록 담장이 원고 소유의 토지를 2.8㎡ 침범하여 건축되어 있었고, 현재도 같은 상태이다.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, 7 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the following damages caused by the violation of land ownership by the plaintiff.

① From September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2019, the amount of damages equivalent to the rent calculated by 5% per annum on the officially announced land price of the land (the Plaintiff, having written the expression “land rent” but hereinafter referred to as “amount of damages equivalent to the rent”) 1,185,800 won; ② 10,000 won of consolation money for emotional distress damages ③ the Plaintiff suffered from the Plaintiff’s failure to rent his/her house (3,00,000 won for cleaning expenses due to leakage, etc. ④ 2,60,000 won for cleaning expenses incurred by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. ①, ③, and ④ The statement of evidence No. 8 regarding the claim for damages is insufficient to acknowledge that the rent on the land owned by the Plaintiff reaches the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff failed to lease his house due to such boundary intrusion.

There is no evidence that the rent has reached the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was cleaning by paying the above amount due to the security intrusion as above.

B. In examining the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the assertion of damages, there is a special circumstance that the Plaintiff suffered irrecoverable mental suffering due to the Defendant’s violation of boundary, only compensation for property damage.