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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 260 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant C is the owner of E 2,382 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant C’s adjacent land”) and F 43 square meters, who is the owner of G village where the Plaintiff and the Defendants reside, and Defendant B is the developer of G village.

B. When the warehouse on the instant land was destroyed due to typhoons, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with H on October 22, 2012 for the construction of a new warehouse on the instant land (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 23,000,000, the down payment of KRW 8,000,000, the remainder amount of KRW 15,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 15,000,000. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid H the down payment of KRW 8,00,000.

C. H discontinued the instant construction, and returned to the Plaintiff KRW 5,50,000,000, totaling KRW 3,000,000 on December 27, 2012, and KRW 2,50,000 on January 10, 2013.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff removed the instant ground warehouse on September 2012, and buried waste concrete 22.66 tons and waste asbestos 0.74 tons on the instant land, which are commercial wastes discharged in the process. As a result, the Plaintiff issued a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 on June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 on June 26, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 15 (including paper numbers)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On October 21, 2012, the Defendants unilaterally asserted that the area of 43 square meters in the field E, Jeonnam-gun was originally owned by the Plaintiff, and that it was an access to the village. The Plaintiff interfered with the entry of the community center of the pumps for the instant construction, and walking with the wire network and the steel bars set up by the Plaintiff for the foundation construction, and the Plaintiff was issued the instant summary order by reporting the Plaintiff to the Goung-gun and the Goungung Police Station in violation of the Environmental Waste Management Act. (2) The instant construction was suspended due to the Defendants’ interference.