beta
Text
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant C limited liability company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is performing the construction of a site for solar power facilities on each land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of H owned by the representative director of H (hereinafter “instant land”).
Defendant D is the owner of the land listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Plaintiff A is the owner of the F 3978 square meters and its ground buildings that are adjacent to each of the above lands, and the Plaintiff B is the owner of G 280 square meters.
[Ground of recognition] The description and image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the inquiry results of the fact-finding conducted on May 19, 2020, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant Company asserted that the Plaintiffs had removed trees on the above land on October 2019 while performing installation works for solar power infrastructure in the instant land, and due to the high slope of the above land, the excellent land owned by the Plaintiffs and Saturdays flow out from the above land.
Defendant D removed trees on the instant land No. 2 in around 2018, and as a result, it flows out to the land owned by the Plaintiffs from the said land as excellent time.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek installation of facilities that prevent excellent and soil erosion, such as the written claim, as a claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership, against the Defendants.
3. Determination
A. It is not enough to recognize that the defendant company's construction of solar power facilities on the land in the first land of this case is likely to flow superior and earth and sand to the extent that it exceeds the generally accepted limit in social life, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
(In particular, the land owned by the Plaintiff B is adjacent to the land No. 1 of this case). Rather, the land No. 2.