beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff
(a) remove each part of the building listed in the separate sheet;
(b) 10,000,000;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 29, 191, the Plaintiff, along with E, F, and G, is a person who is residing in the fourth floor of the above building after completing the registration of initial ownership as to four-story neighborhood living facilities and housing (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s building for convenience”) in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, as well as the 1/4 shares of each of the 1/4 shares.
B. The Defendants, on the first ground of Gangnam-gu Seoul, adjacent to the south-gu Office of the Plaintiff’s building, newly constructed five-story housing of reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”) on August 28, 2014, with a distance of about three meters from the baseer of the Plaintiff’s building and about 3 meters, and completed registration of the preservation of ownership on August 28, 2014, and thereafter extend the respective building parts listed in the separate sheet to September 19, 2014 without permission.
C. As a result of the extension of each part of the building listed in the separate sheet, (1) as of December 22, 2014, where there is additional sunlighting due to another neighboring building located on the south side of the Plaintiff’s building that is close with the Defendant’s building, the number of sunshine hours of the Plaintiff’s building is based on the appraiser J. According to the result of the appraiser J. In this court’s inquiry into the appraiser J., the above appraiser appraised the change of sunshine hours of the Plaintiff’s building due to the extension of each part of the building listed in the separate sheet on the premise that there is no other building in the vicinity of each of the building in this case. Accordingly, the number of sunshine hours listed in the separate sheet is the maximum number of sunshine hours available for the Plaintiff’s building under the circumstance that each part of the building in the separate sheet was extended after the Defendant’s building or after the date. As pointed out by the Defendants, the actual number of sunshine hours of the Plaintiff’s building does not reach each of the following hours: