1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as a sectional owner of the first floor 1015 (hereinafter “Plaintiff store”) underground of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant building”), is operating the retail store (Cmate) at the said store.

The defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the building of this case.

B. As shown in the annexed Form 2, the opposite side of the back wall of the Plaintiff shop is an underground parking lot with the first floor above the ground, and in particular, it is a plane part connecting “a slope way from the ground surface to the second floor above the ground surface” with “a slope way from the underground surface to the second floor above the ground surface”.

(Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the Schedule 2; hereinafter referred to as “instant dispute”).

In the dispute of this case, parking fees settlement facilities have been installed as shown in the original attached Form 2.

However, the dispute area in this case was operated for more than 10 years in a one-way way, unlike the design drawing, on the ground that the width of the slope of the underground parking lot is too narrow and it is difficult to pass both directions (only the vehicle coming from the underground second floor is going to the ground side, and the vehicle coming from the ground side is moving to the right side and using another passage). Accordingly, the charge settlement office for the first floor above the ground was not used, and the cargo storage was installed on the side of the wall (the rear side side of the Plaintiff store) of the space where the passage through the road is located.

Through the operation of the above facilities and one-way traffic method, the back walls of the Plaintiff shop could be safely protected from the collision of traffic vehicles.

However, around 2011, the defendant removed the existing fee settlement office facilities and loaded storage and changed the way of passage of the dispute of this case into two directions.

As a result, the back wall of the Plaintiff shop was directly exposed to the traffic vehicle, and eventually, on May 6, 201, the automobile was caused by the accident where the back wall of the Plaintiff shop was received.

E. The defendant's above.