1. Defendant CCD Design Certified Design Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 3,592,036, respectively, and the Plaintiffs on August 30, 2014.

1. The Plaintiffs, based on the facts, have owned 1/2 shares of each of the 1/2 shares of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 193 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the 2nd unit housing (hereinafter “housing”). Defendant C, on August 20, 2013, acquired ownership of the land adjacent to the above land, Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-type 177 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant C’s land”) and had the owner construct the building on that ground (hereinafter “the instant building”). Defendant C C’s C’s C’s design architect (hereinafter “Defendant C’s design”) is a construction contractor of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant construction”).

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. As the instant construction project requires repair costs equivalent to KRW 13,105,039 in the land and housing units, the damages amounting to KRW 12,00,000 in total for eight months as the construction noise, etc. makes it impossible for the Plaintiffs to lease housing due to the construction noise, etc.

Therefore, the defendants should pay each of the plaintiffs 12,525,520 won [13,105,039 won (12,000,000 won)] and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants in the part of the claim for removal against the chemical group of this case must be removed in order to restore the land to its original state, since they unilaterally violated the existing boundaries between the land of the Plaintiffs and the land of Defendant C without the consent of the Plaintiffs and shut down the waterway in which they existed and set up the chemical group of this case.

3. Determination on the claim for damages

A. (1) In fact, the instant construction was conducted by excavating the ground below approximately 1.3 meters compared to the ground of the Plaintiffs’ housing.

The plaintiffs' housing was approved on December 27, 1974.