beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s Mari-si Maurel (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).
(3) A building is deemed to be a new building of this case (hereinafter referred to as “new building of this case”).
2) As to the construction of new buildings, the construction of new buildings of this case (hereinafter “new construction of this case”) by occupying and using E as a vehicle for the construction of this case.
(2) The Plaintiff continued to conduct the instant construction project, and accordingly, failed to enter the entrance of the instant telecom parking lot installed in the said road, and caused excessive noise and dust from the instant new construction project. (2) The Plaintiff also sought payment of KRW 30,000,100,000, which is a part of the amount of damages corresponding to the reduced sales amount, around the Defendant, as the sales amount of the instant telecom, was reduced due to the instant construction project, and suffered mental suffering, and thus, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 30,000,100,000, which is a part of the amount of damages.
B. 1) First of all, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sales of the franchise of this case has been reduced by the Defendant occupying Kuri-si E for the instant new construction work, causing interference with the passage of the instant apartment complex into the instant apartment parking lot. According to each of the statements and images set forth in Articles 3 through 8, and 11, the Defendant can find out the fact that the Defendant parked a construction vehicle in Kuri-si, which is opened between the instant apartment complex and the instant new building in the process of the new construction of this case and parked a construction material, etc. required for the instant new construction. However, the aforementioned evidence and the above facts alone are insufficient to find that the Defendant parked the said vehicle on the said road by parking the said vehicle on the said road, etc., and ultimately, it is insufficient to find that the sales of the apartment of this case has been reduced, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.