1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff sought removal of a chimney on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant chimney”) against the Defendant and C by the Seoul Central District Court 2016Gadan5058167, etc.

B. During the continuation of the instant case, the decision on recommending a compromise made on June 15, 2016 (hereinafter “decision on recommending a compromise”) became final and conclusive, and the said decision is as follows.

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendants confirm that the instant chimney was jointly owned by the sectional owners of B apartment before reconstruction and the sectional owners of B upper houses, and that the rights and obligations of the owners of B apartment before reconstruction currently succeeded to the said chimney by Defendant B apartment house reconstruction and improvement project association.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants agree to remove the said chimney and, in the event that the said chimney is to be removed through due process as prescribed by the Act, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are liable to bear the cost of removal as prescribed by the Act.

(3) The plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit of this case, and the defendants agree thereto.

C. The Plaintiff’s defect in executing the removal of the instant chimney, and the Defendant filed an application for provisional injunction against the removal of the instant chimney with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kahap81355 (hereinafter “instant provisional injunction”). D.

In the above provisional disposition case, the court included the content of the above provisional disposition that the defendant consented to the removal of the stack of this case, but also included the content of the "after the end, through due process prescribed by the law," and the defendant seems to have to have obtained ratification resolution as to the consent to removal of the stack of this case from the members at least. Thus, it is insufficient to deem that the above provisional disposition decision alone was an unconditional consent of the defendant. The above provisional disposition application was accepted on the ground that there was no data that the stack of this case's other co-owners of the stack of this case's stack of this case'

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;