The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs KRW 1,000,000 each.

Plaintiff

A All remaining claims are dismissed.

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

A is the owner of D large scale 271 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D land”) and the building with the asbestos slate roof 39.67 square meters above the ground in Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, and Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s son.

The Defendant is the owner of a building of 42.98 square meters in Seopopo-si in the vicinity of D land (hereinafter referred to as “E land”) and a building of 241 square meters in Seopo-si in the vicinity of D land (hereinafter referred to as “E land”).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiffs' assertion purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the entire argument purport of the whole argument is that the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to E's land and its ground wood paper 42.98 square meters (F-ho building in the copy of the register; hereinafter "F-ho building").

In addition, the defendant purchases from G the E land and its ground wooden sapap 15 square meters building (hereinafter referred to as the "other buildings") in order to distinguish from the above building building, and actually owns it.

However, among the D land owned by the Plaintiff, the Fho Lake building and other buildings on the land above the above E are 5 square meters in line with the indication of the Map No. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 7, 8, and 1 of the attached Table No. 2.

Therefore, as the owner or disposal right holder of the above F-ho building and other buildings, the defendant is obligated to remove the above each building and deliver the land in the above part to the plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 50,000 per month by the completion date of delivery of the above land.

The defendant did not install facilities to prevent rainwater from falling off, such as roof and eavess of the building and other buildings, and as a result, rainwater away from each of the above buildings flows out of the D building owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to install adequate facilities to prevent the plaintiff from falling the eavesdy directly into adjoining land.

On July 2019 and August 2019, the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff’s house without permission.