1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff owns the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,752 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “B site”), the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 53 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “C site”), and the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 2,142 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D site”), and the said three land is combined and owned (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant sites”).

E Site: Attached Form

2. As in the form of drawings, the land is in contact with each other of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, F, and G and is used as a passage for neighboring residents (the part of the land on which the upper line is D and the part of the land on which the upper line is located is the above E, F, and G) and the land B is attached to the attached Form;

3. The shape of the drawing is adjacent to the H site in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and is used as a passage for neighboring residents (the upper part of the land inside the upper line is B, and the upper part of the land in the upper line is the H site above) and the attached Form C also is used as a passage for neighboring residents;

4. The form of drawings is being used as a passage for neighboring residents, in contact with each site of H and E in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(F) The lower court determined that each of the instant lands was C and the parts of the instant lands owned by the K and E are the same as the instant lands. The Defendant attached to the Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, E, F, and G (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) abutting on each of the instant lands.

1. As described in the construction permit (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was issued.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 and 8-2, and according to Article 44(1) of the Building Act of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, according to the purport of Article 44(1) of the Building Act, the site of the building should adjoin to

The defendant considers each site of this case as "road" under the Building Act, and as long as the site subject to permission of this case is linked at least two meters to each site of this case, which is a road, the building to be constructed on each site of this case shall be deemed to meet the requirements of Article 44(1) of the Building Act.