1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In the previous case mediation, the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in the land in the land and the forest in the land in the land in the land in the land in the land in the land in the land in the land in the Yeongdeungpo-gu and the land in the forest (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the

1. The Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) pays KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) by September 28, 2012.

2. The plaintiff shall remove the retaining wall installed on each land of the land of Heung-gu E and F and install a new pottery wall, and in the installation work, the following matters shall be fulfilled.

The basis of a retaining wall to be newly installed may be installed underground within three meters from the boundary of each land of the defendant and G-owned land, Heung-gu C and D, G, but the ground boundary of the retaining wall cannot be invaded by the above land.

(b) The construction of a retaining wall shall ensure that the installation of the retaining wall does not damage the surface trees and garments (excluding the wells) of each of the land owned by the Defendant and G, Gosi-si C, G, and that each of the above land shall be restored to its original state before the collapse of the retaining wall after the installation of the retaining wall.

C. In accordance with the appraisal report submitted by appraiser H (hereinafter “the appraisal report in the case of a prior election”), a drainage channel (which is equivalent to the construction cost of KRW 3,730,420) and a new sperm (the construction cost of KRW 3,300,00) shall be installed on each land owned by the Defendant and G, Young-gu C and D (which is equivalent to KRW 3,730,420)

3. Accordingly, on July 2011, the Plaintiff, which omitted (the Defendant did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s retaining wall installation works, and the Plaintiff did not impose all responsibility on the Defendant and G with respect to the damages incurred from delay in the installation of retaining wall), claimed that the retaining wall installed on the Plaintiff’s land was collapsed, due to earth and sand leaked from the Defendant’s land, and filed a claim for damages against the Defendant (Uwon District Court 201Gahap19112), and the conciliation was concluded on August 14, 2012 as follows (hereinafter “the instant case adjustment clause”).

B. On September 2012, the Defendant of a retaining wall construction project.