1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

A. At Jeju, the Plaintiffs owned 1/2 each of the buildings E and its ground (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land and building”) and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) owned the F site adjacent to the said land, and newly constructed an apartment building on the ground above the said site (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. Of the instant apartment buildings with the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land, the distance of part of the stairs exterior wall lines was 0.34m, 0.28m, part of the outer wall lines of the building, 0.42m, and 0.28m, the distance of part of the outer wall line of the building was 0.28m (hereinafter “the part of the instant violation”), and the distance of part of the gas pipeline was 50cm from the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land.

C. Defendant D is the construction supervisor of the instant apartment, and Defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province is the permitting authority to construct the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal made on October 28, 2016 to the Han-gu National Land Information System of this Court, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province's defense on this case's lawsuit seeking damages for tort, such as the plaintiffs' failure to correct the violation of the separation distance of the apartment of this case against defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the administrative agency of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province has the ability to stand as a party, and thus, the plaintiffs' claim against defendant Jeju Special Self-Governing Province has no ability to stand as a party as a local government, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant Special Self-Governing Province has no capacity to stand as a party.

The defendant company of this case newly constructed the apartment building of this case with a distance of 50 cm from the boundary of the plaintiff's land. The defendant company of this case newly constructed the apartment building of this case with a distance of 242 (1) of the Civil Code.