1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts (no dispute exists);

A. The Defendant newly constructed the instant building on the land adjacent to the 142 square meters adjacent to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City E, Gwangjin-gu, 165 square meters and D large 13 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant neighboring land”), which is owned by the Plaintiffs.

B. From the neighboring land of this case, the part of the building in the attached Form 2 “O” (hereinafter “the part of the building in this case”) is 0.47m and 0.28m with the same drawing indication “h” (hereinafter “the part of the building in this case”) among the buildings in this case, the part of “E” with the same drawing indication “E” (hereinafter “the part in this case”) is 0.48m far from the adjacent land in this case.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the plaintiffs' building (1), (4), and (5) were constructed without complying with the separation distance as stipulated in Article 242 of the Civil Code, the defendant is obligated to remove each of the above parts.

B. Defendant 1) The instant lawsuit was filed on May 15, 2017 with the lapse of one year from April 8, 2016, which was the date on which the instant building commenced, and as such, the instant building was completed, the Plaintiffs’ claim for removal is unreasonable pursuant to the proviso to Article 242(2) of the Civil Act, even if not, pursuant to the proviso to Article 242(2) of the Civil Act.

3. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the proviso of Article 242 of the Civil Act, the Defendant’s commencement of the new construction of the instant building on April 8, 2016, and the Plaintiffs’ continued to demand the Defendant to remove the part of the instant building (which appears to be the part of the instant building) in violation of the restriction on separation distance from June 24, 2016.

The claim for removal under the main sentence of Article 242(2) of the Civil Act includes a claim other than a trial, and as long as the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to remove the part of violation of the distance limitation from the date two months have elapsed since the commencement date of the construction of the building of this case, the lawsuit of this case was filed one year after the commencement date

In the end, this case.