1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional or supplementary judgments on the part alleged by the plaintiff as the grounds for appeal. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The gist of the grounds of appeal 1) The reason why the construction of the instant emergency district was needed is that the part of the first underground floor of the instant building was an emergency exit corresponding to the main entrance and exit in the part of the Defendant, as a result of the partition of co-owned property on the first underground floor of the instant building, while the part of the Plaintiff, which became the part of the co-owned property, did not have an emergency exit corresponding to the main entrance and exit. As such, the partition of co-owned property was possible due to the Plaintiff’s demand that the Plaintiff, which was required to lend. Generally, the first floor of the instant building and the first floor of the commercial building of the instant high-rise building, such as the instant building, is common for the occupant of the publicly-used establishment, and the construction of the instant emergency district is necessary for the occupant of the publicly-used establishment, and as a result, the Defendant is obligated to cooperate to the extent necessary for the use of and profit from the Plaintiff’s part of the co-owned property. (2) As a result, demanding the Defendant’s consent to the construction of the instant emergency district to be determined only to minimize human damage.

The construction of the emergency exit of this case is to install part of the fire walls, which are non-proof walls, and to facilitate evacuation when a fire breaks out, thereby minimizing human life damage. Therefore, it is consistent with the public interest and is also beneficial to the defendant.

In addition, the fire service policy officer's response that "this case's construction project does not cause damage due to flames and smokes when a fire occurs" from the fire service policy officer.