1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the Nam-gu Seoul Housing (hereinafter “Plaintiff Housing”) located in the Nam-gu Office of Port, and the Defendant was the owner of the D Housing located adjacent to the Plaintiff Housing (hereinafter “Defendant Housing”) by September 14, 2014.

On October 1, 2013, the Defendant carried out construction works by drilling the wall surface of the Defendant’s housing on several occasions, and the dust generated in the process was attached to the second floor and the stairs of the Plaintiff’s housing that the Plaintiff carried out painting operations.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered losses from the payment of KRW 1,393,00 at the coloring expense, and the defendant is liable to compensate the above losses to the plaintiff.

In addition, on February 20, 2013, the Defendant started construction of covering the roof of the Defendant’s house with a strong board, and if it comes from rain, the Defendant’s house left the roof of the Defendant’s house with heavy noise directly from rainwater, as well as damage of various documents, etc. owned by the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiff for consolation money of KRW 3,000,000.

2. The fact that the Defendant was the owner of the Defendant’s housing adjacent to the Plaintiff’s housing until September 14, 2014, and that the Defendant carried out the work of drilling part of the wall of the Defendant’s housing in the course of drainage work around October 1, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.

However, each of the above facts and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 11 (including the paper numbers) occurred with a considerable amount of dust at the time of the defendant's above work, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the dust was caused by the plaintiff's house, thereby making a color for the paint that the plaintiff worked on the day before, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, only the images of Gap evidence No. 9 submitted by the plaintiff as at the time, cannot be viewed as being a shot of dust generated from the defendant's house, and it is difficult to view that the fire occurred from the defendant's house, and that the plaintiff submitted it as a shot photographs.