beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of arguments and arguments in each entry or video of Gap evidence 8 to 10, evidence 14-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8-1 to 24-2.
The Plaintiff is the owner of the housing of the first floor and the third floor above the ground of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s building”). Defendant B is the owner who newly built the housing of the fifth floor above the ground surface (hereinafter “the Defendant’s building”), which is a site adjacent to the Plaintiff’s building, and obtained approval for use on August 27, 2010, and is the owner of the building of the Defendant’s 203, 204, 304, and 305, and the Defendant C is the owner of the Defendant’s 404, 501.
B. Of the Defendant’s buildings of this case, heading 203, 204, 304, 305, 404, and 501 are facing the Plaintiff’s building of this case, and their windows are installed on each wall.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) paid KRW 20 million to the plaintiff's losses incurred in the construction of the defendant's building in this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and the defendant Eul agreed to close each window set forth in 203, 204, 304, and 305 of the defendant's building in this case, and to install a screen facility at each beera window set forth in 404 and 501 of the defendant's building in this case. Since the upper part of the beera window set forth in 203, 204, and 305 of the defendant's building in this case is not a fixed type, it is possible for the plaintiff to open the window to view the house of the plaintiff's house. Although the window set forth in 204, and 305 are installed, the plaintiff's building in this case cannot be seen as a small size of the screen facility, the defendant's building in this case must be closed and paid KRW 200,000.
(2) Defendant C is a screen facility between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the bend window of the instant building Nos. 404 and 501.