1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is the owner of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large 115 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), and the Plaintiff is the owner of D, E, and F land adjacent to the instant real estate and buildings on each ground.

(hereinafter referred to as "real estate only with the relevant lot number"). (b)

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant accepted the Intervenor’s building report on multi-family housing (20.52 square meters in total and 41.04 square meters in total) on the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 19 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Building Act prohibits the construction of a road, and the building is obligated to secure a refuge passage.

The key land of this case is a road under the Building Act, and the width thereof is narrow so that it is not possible to secure an escape passage, and thus the building report shall not be accepted.

Therefore, the instant disposition that accepted the building report on the land at issue of the instant case is an illegal disposition that violates the Building Act.

The plaintiff is the owner of each building on the ground of D and E, and the right to access to the land of this case due to the illegal disposition of this case, the right to maintain and preserve the safe state of escape, fire-fighting, and sanitation in the event of similar circumstances protected by law pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44 through 47 of the Building Act, which prohibit construction in the road under the Building Act, and the right to sunshine of the land of this case and the right to land ownership due to the invasion of boundary.

In addition, the disposition of this case is inconsistent with the defendant's prior disposition that permitted the construction of the above building on the premise of the above use of the parking lot by prohibiting the use of the parking lot located on the back side of the D land. Accordingly, the plaintiff violated the traffic right related to the use of the parking lot on the land of this case.