1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff newly constructed a multi-household house with the fourth floor located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned building”) and owned it after completing registration of ownership preservation on August 2, 2002.

B. On July 19, 2002, the Defendant approved the use of the building to the owner D on July 19, 2002 with respect to the apartment housing of the fourth floor above the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground (hereinafter “instant adjacent building”).

C. D extended the upper part of the balcony No. 201 among the neighboring buildings of this case without permission, such as the “the balcony status photograph on the 2nd floor” attached Table 1, and the Defendant indicated and managed this part on July 16, 2009 as illegal building on the building management ledger of the neighboring building of this case. D At the present site of Gangdong-gu Seoul, where the neighboring building of this case is located, a specific use area is a Class-III general residential area, and a general residential area was at the time of the instant approval for use. [Grounds for Recognition] There is no dispute, Party A (including a temporary number, hereinafter the same shall apply)

written evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is 7.8m based on the height from 3 floors, the Plaintiff asserts that the height from 11.8m to 2.63m of the entire height of the building of the instant adjacent building is 9.17m if the Plaintiff deducts the height from 11.8m to 2.63m of the building of the instant adjacent building, the height from 1st to 3rd of the instant adjacent building is 9.17m.

(See the Plaintiff’s brief dated December 31, 2012 (see, e.g., 3 pages). However, as seen in [Attachment 2-Attachment 2], if the Plaintiff deducts the entire height of the neighboring building of this case from 11.8m from 11.8m to 2.7m, and the part of rooftop rail from 1.3m, the height from the first floor to the third floor of the neighboring building of this case shall be 7.8m.

It seems that the plaintiff did not dispute that the height of this part is 7.8 meters after that of the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da14488 delivered on February 26, 2013). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the registration of the Plaintiff’s act under the Building Act on February 18, 2010.