1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From May 18, 1996, the Plaintiff owned a house located on the D’s ground (hereinafter “instant house”) in Gangwon-do, Won-si, Gangwon-do. On May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff donated it to E and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendants of this case are owners of this case who completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 26, 2009 with respect to C-ground telecom Building (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).

(Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the phenomenon that the owner of the franchise of this case, F, due to the development of large-scale groundwater in the inside the Moel, has a phenomenon of the Maurel, and the right to enjoy sunshine of the housing of this case was infringed due to the construction of the Mour, and, in recognition of the fact that the right to enjoy sunshine of the housing of this case was infringed, connect the housing of this case to the housing of this case so that the Plaintiff can use the groundwater of the Mourur, and the Defendants of this case also allowed the Plaintiff to use the groundwater of the Mour with the knowledge of such fact.

However, since the defendants of this case unilaterally cut off the connection of the above groundwater at the time of the filing of the lawsuit related to the road of the apartment site of this case, the above defendants are obligated to connect the above Moel's groundwater to the housing of this case, such as the plaintiff's purport of claim.

B. We examine the judgment. The Defendants succeeded to the duty of allowing the Plaintiff to use groundwater supplied at the above Moel’s pre-owner’s groundwater.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff consented to the use of the above groundwater with the knowledge of such fact after acquiring the above telecom.

3. Conclusion