beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Two-story buildings (one-story store, two-story house, and one-story building of this case; hereinafter “first-story building”) were newly built by Nonparty E on December 31, 1979. F on July 31, 1990 and the Plaintiff purchased each of them on November 5, 1996.
B. On July 18, 1980, the building No. 1 of this case, which is the land immediately adjacent to the building No. 1 of this case, one story building (house; hereinafter “the building No. 2 of this case”) on the ground of 90 square meters in Yong-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, which is the land immediately adjacent to the building No. 1 of this case, was registered for preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant. After that, the defendant newly constructed the brick and the building No. 2 of this case without permission on the building No.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 1-4, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff resided from December 1998 after purchasing the building No. 1, and at the time, the roof of the building No. 2 became well accessible to sunbeams on the window of the second floor residential building of the building No. 1 in this case. The Defendant, around 2005, violated the height limit for securing sunlight rights under the Civil Act (0.5m) and the Building Act, and installed windows in the direction of the building No. 2 in the direction of the building No. 3 in this case, while expanding the building No. 3 in this case without permission, and installed windows in the direction of the building No. 2 in the direction of the building No. 3 in this case. 3 building No. 2 in this case. 3 building of this case, the Plaintiff was unable to lead to daily life, and the sunlight of the building cannot be seen as light due to extension, and thus, the Defendant was in contact with the building No. 21 in this case’s height and profit.