1. The part against the defendant regarding the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to that part.

1. Basic facts

A. Land ownership relation and location 1) The Plaintiff from around 2008 to the present date is 13,022 square meters in a warehouse site in Asia-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s warehouse site”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s warehouse site is the owner of the land. (2) The Defendant’s 823 square meters prior to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on December 15, 2010, F forest and forest land 241 square meters, E forest and forest land 2,105 square meters, etc., as in the present, are affiliated with 3,596 square meters of Emiscellaneous land that was changed and combined (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”). The Plaintiff’s warehouse site is located more than the Defendant’s land, and a slope is formed from the boundary to the Defendant’s land.

3) The Defendant is N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) on February 14, 2011.

(B) On September 2, 2011, the Plaintiff sold the Defendant’s land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on N on September 2, 201. (B) On August 2008, the Plaintiff newly constructed a warehouse on the ground of the Plaintiff’s warehouse site (i) around August 2008, the Plaintiff built a new warehouse on the ground of the Plaintiff’s warehouse site. During that process, reinforcement stone embankments (hereinafter “instant stable walls”).

2) Around June 2010, at the time of the Defendant’s work to cut off part of the slopes of the Defendant’s land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s warehouse site, there was a phenomenon that the Plaintiff’s warehouse site and the instant stable wall invadeds. 3) The Defendant contracted H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) to construct the Defendant’s land as the factory site, and H performed the work of cutting down the part that was covered by the Defendant’s husband’s husband’s G order.

4. On the other hand, on October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport that the Defendant would take appropriate measures in viewing because the Plaintiff did not take any particular safety measures even in the above invasion situation on the Asan View. On November 5, 2010, the Asan City Mayor is the Defendant’s representative.

It is a letter that the plaintiff's civil petition is notified and measures are taken within the city and cooperation is made so that there is no damage to neighboring residents.