1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of land B located in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Jeju (hereinafter “instant land”) and the second floor building on its ground, and the Defendant is a corporation that constructed a new hotel building on the land adjacent to C and D located in the instant land around November 2014 (hereinafter “new construction project”).

B. At the time of the Defendant’s execution of the instant new construction, E used the instant land as a parking lot in operating a mutually named restaurant, “F” by leasing the instant land and its ground buildings from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) while the Defendant’s assertion was proceeding with the new construction of this case, caused interference with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership in the instant land by neglecting construction wastes, such as string concrete, etc., on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, namely, the sum of the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in removing concrete further laid down by the Plaintiff, in other words, for flatization work and the new construction of bricks, and damages for delay.

(2) At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, E, a lessee of the instant land and its ground buildings, at the time of the instant new construction project, requested the Defendant’s site manager G to use the instant land floor as a parking lot and make it difficult for the Defendant to use it as a parking lot because it is hard to use it as a parking lot. In response, the Defendant’s demand was made by using concrete to remove concrete on the instant land floor, and it did not constitute a period of vacation without permission, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. In full view of the description of evidence No. 7 and witness G testimony, there was a lessee of the instant land and its ground building at the time of the Defendant’s assertion.