1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government) brick structure (reficial concrete roof) newly built on the ground of 55.9 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dadae-gu 63.5 square meters of a wooden flag and a pent roof house (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Housing”).

The Defendant newly constructed the two-story detached houses of brick structure (refinite concrete roof) and completed registration of initial ownership on February 27, 2015, on the ground of 55.9 square meters adjacent to the other side of the Plaintiff’s house.

B. After the construction of the above building, the Defendant, without permission for extension and large-scale repair, established a department for alinium 1,2, 10, 7, 8, 9, and 1 in the order of 1.9 meters in the direction of the Plaintiff’s housing on the first floor of the above building, which connects each point of 1.9 meters in the direction of the Plaintiff’s housing, and established a department for alinium columns and sandd position on the 2nd floor of the ground, which connects each point of 1.9 meters in the direction of the Plaintiff’s housing, and 1.3 meters in the direction of the road direction on the 1.9 meters above the 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, and 1 in the direction of the road.

(hereinafter referred to as "the portion of the extension without permission", and the whole building shall be referred to as "the defendant's house").

The defendant used the first floor of the extension without permission of this case as a stairs leading to the main room and the second floor, and the second floor as an internal space.

On October 29, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of one million won due to a violation of the Building Act, and from January 2016, the Defendant imposed a enforcement fine ordering the relevant authorities to remove the unauthorized extension portion.

Due to the unauthorized Extension, the distance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s housing was 70 cm.

Plaintiff

Even in the absence of the portion of the instant unauthorized extension, the housing did not meet all the conditions of the daily total of four hours and two consecutive hours. However, in the absence of unauthorized extension, Article 40 has been recognized in succession. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the benefits of sunshine at all due to unauthorized extension.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's housing first floor space.