1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant is liable to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, since the defendant's private life was infringed on the plaintiff's private life by constructing a new five-story loan on the land surface in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, which is owned by the defendant, with the plaintiff's resident, and without installing a proper screen facility on the wall window, since the defendant's residents' right to use a five-story loan was easily recognizable by the plaintiff's activities.

2. Article 243 of the Civil Act provides that “If a person installs a window or verand, at a distance of not more than two meters from the boundary, the inside of another person’s house, he/she shall install a proper screen facility.”

In addition, in a case where a resident on adjoining land suffers a disadvantage such as invasion of privacy due to new construction of a building, in order to be judged as an illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right by law, the degree of interference should exceed the generally accepted acceptance limit under the social norms.

In full view of the statements in Gap 1 through 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 3 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the video verification by this court, the plaintiff is residing in the possession of a single-story house from June 2002 to 90.9 square meters, and the defendant can recognize the fact that he purchased two lots of land adjacent to the plaintiff's building, and newly constructed a five-story loan on the side of the Bara window by purchasing two lots of land adjacent to the plaintiff's building and constructing a five-story loan on the ground around July 2014.

In the above facts, it does not seem that the Defendant violated the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, while constructing a sub-building, and that the Defendant did not seem to have the obligation to install a screen facility up to the balcony part outside the 4 and 5th floor building alleged by the Plaintiff, and that the part claiming that the Plaintiff’s privacy is infringed upon is somewhat weak due to the Plaintiff’s paralysis and part of the entrance, etc., and to some extent, through the blocking device such as pressing.