1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff completed each registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to land C and two detached houses owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned housing”) on the land and two detached houses owned by the Plaintiff, on December 17, 2014, respectively, on the ground that the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the two-story detached houses owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of the above land, and operates the peny with the trade name “D” at this place.

B. On June 29, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to E’s land between the Plaintiff’s ownership and the sea, and on October 22, 2010, the registration of ownership preservation with respect to single-story houses on the ground above the above land was completed. At present, the Defendant constructed three-story pension (hereinafter “Defendant-owned pension”) on the above land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of on-site inspection, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s tort, since the Defendant’s construction of a penture owned by the Defendant incurred noise, dust, etc. exceeding permissible amounts.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant generated noise, dust, etc. to the extent that it exceeded the tolerance limit while constructing a pentle owned by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for damages due to infringement of the right to view has purchased land and housing owned by the Plaintiff in order to conduct a penture business in which the sea can be seen, and Plaintiff’s right to view is important to the extent that it should be approved as an independent interest under social norms.

Since the Defendant committed an illegal act that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s right to view by constructing a pen owned by the Defendant, the value of the Plaintiff’s house owned by the Plaintiff following the infringement on the right to view.