1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. The appeal cost and this court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 1996, the Plaintiff purchased Kimhae-si Carryover (hereinafter “D”) under her husband’s name and resides in it until now. The Defendant also purchased the same building E around that time.

purchase and reside until now.

As the Plaintiff purchased No. D, water leakage occurred in the inside of the DNA bank, and due to this, malodor was generated in the DNA bank and the wall, and the Plaintiff was engaged in the repair work from the construction cost of KRW 1,100,000,000 in the DNA bank, around March 2018.

Since water leakages generated in the inside of the bank bank were caused by the rupture of boiler pipes under subparagraph E owned by the Defendant, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,100,000 of the construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff as compensation in lieu of defect repair.

B. The plaintiff and the defendant have been punished for a long time due to the water leakage in this case, and thus, the frame of appraisal between the parties has considerably deep, and the defendant has neglected the plaintiff's request for dialogue and threatened the plaintiff. Since it is reasonable for the defendant to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful life in the future, it is reasonable that the defendant could interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful life in the future. Accordingly, a claim for prohibition of access, etc. and a claim for payment of 50,000 won per time for

2. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the plaintiff is admitted to the facts that the defendant resides in Eul's subparagraph D, the defendant resides in Eul's subparagraph E, and the fact that water leakage occurred in the ceiling of Eul's subparagraph D.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the leakage from the DNA tent was caused by the cracks of boiler pipes in E, and also the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that it is likely to interfere with the peaceful life of the plaintiff, and it is possible to recognize it differently.