The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of G’s land at two weeks, and Defendant C is the owner of the land located at H and Defendant F in both weeks, and Defendant E is the owner of each land located at J in both weeks.

B. The Plaintiff installed a retaining wall up to approximately 2.7 meters between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendants’ land. The Defendants, upon raising land, made approximately 2 meters of the part toward the Defendant’s land out of the Plaintiff’s retaining wall be filled with soil. Since then, the Plaintiff’s soil removal work is conducted, the level of approximately 1.85 meters is left with soil.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 15, 20, 21 evidence, Eul evidence 9 through 12, 16, 44, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is a drainage tool on the retaining wall installed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendants filled the land so that the drainage tool of the retaining wall can be cut off with soil, which led to the occurrence of blackout in the retaining wall and ground subsidence, etc.

Therefore, the defendants are responsible for removing the above soil and compensating the plaintiff for the damages incurred thereby.

B. In light of the determination, it appears that the conditions required under the relevant laws and regulations are observed by removing the height of soil filled by the Defendants to be less than 2 meters. Although the Defendants’ act was found to have resulted in the Plaintiff’s act of cutting the drainage hole into the Plaintiff’s retaining wall into soil, it is insufficient to recognize that the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone was a matter of structural stability of the retaining wall, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.