beta
Text
1.(a)
The Defendants jointly share KRW 6,150,000 to Plaintiff A and Defendant C with respect thereto from February 26, 2016.
Reasons
1. On the ground of the building site in Nam-gu, Daegu, Daegu, where the building of the second floor is located, the F apartment of the size of the 8th floor above ground (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was constructed around 2002. Based on the above site, Defendant C owned the house of the 2nd floor on the G ground adjacent to the left-hand side, and Defendant D owned the house of the 1st floor on the H ground adjacent to that right-hand side based on the above site.
Plaintiff
A is a sectional owner who acquired the ownership of subparagraph 301 of the third floor among the instant apartment on July 19, 2012, and resides with families from around that time, and Plaintiff B is a sectional owner who acquired the ownership of subparagraph 302 of the third floor among the instant apartment on September 17, 2012, and is residing with families from around that time.
On September 3, 2015, Defendant C removed 2nd floor in Daegu-gu I, and constructed a multi-family house with the size of 4th floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as “first building of this case”) on the ground. Defendant D removed 1st floor on the J ground and constructed a multi-family house with the size of 4th floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as “second building of this case”) on April 20, 2016.
In constructing the instant building, Defendant C consulted with the representative, etc. of the resident of the instant apartment, and agreed to replace the wire fence with the instant apartment as compensation for the damages to the occupants residing in the instant apartment due to the construction of the said apartment building, the following: ① the wall color of the instant apartment building; ② the wall color of the wall dong and the wall color of the wall dong and north-west; ③ the floor surface of the first floor parking lot; ④ the removal of the steel fence after the west-le wall; and Defendant C fully implemented the aforementioned consultation.
Defendant C newly constructed the instant building No. 1, and built a screen, approximately 2.2m of the instant apartment and the separation distance, while constructing the instant building, and did not violate the Building Act and subordinate statutes in constructing the instant building No. 1.
Defendant.