1. The plaintiff's successor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2010, the Defendant entered into a real estate trust agreement to trust the instant building and site to the Plaintiff in order to secure the obligation of loans to the Plaintiff and the New Capital Capital Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building and site in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. In violation of the Building Act around November 2010, the Defendant used structures of the 6th floor of the instant building, which is a wedding hall, as well as structures of the place of origin, by expanding the wedding restaurant restaurant and the new unit engine room structure on the floor of the rooftop to be used as a wedding business.

C. The instant building was registered as a general building, not an aggregate building, and the Defendant did not have any separate act regarding the instant building.

On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff sold the instant building and site to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on August 14, 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 17, 2017.

E. After November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor received corrective orders and imposition of enforcement fines on the said extension from the head of Gwangjin-gu Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 8 through 10, Byung evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion was extended without the Plaintiff’s consent at the time of extension of each of the structures stated in the claim(s) of the instant building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that interferes with and impedes the exercise of ownership by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor.

Since the above extension can be easily separated and removed, it is difficult to see that the building was affiliated with the building of this case, and even if it was consistent, it cannot affect the plaintiff's successor's right to claim the removal of interference based on the ownership.

Therefore, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is based on ownership.