1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 1.643 square meters in Seocheon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of D forest land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, 760 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

C. According to the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land, the Defendant installed a retaining wall at a height of about 3 meters on the line connecting each point of the following drawings: (a) (b) caused a disaster, and (c) caused a breath.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 3, Gap evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant shall install a wall at a distance of not less than 0.5 meters from the boundary when he installs a wall on the boundary of land as prescribed in Article 242 of the Civil Act.

B. However, the Defendant installed a fence according to the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land, without setting up the aforementioned distance, and installed a fence on the boundary line.

C. Therefore, since the defendant's fence installation is unlawful in violation of the above provisions of the Civil Code, the defendant must remove the above fence.

3. Determination

(a) For the construction of a building, no special custom exists, a distance of not less than half-meter from the boundary line shall be left;

(Article 242(1) of the Civil Act. The owner of the adjacent land may demand that the person who has violated the provisions of the preceding paragraph remove or modify the building.

(Article 2 of the same Act). The building here is a structure consisting of a minimum pole, roof, and main wall, and its independence must be recognized.

B. In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to view that the retaining wall constructed by the Defendant constituted a breath building.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 242(2) of the Civil Act on the premise that the retaining wall built by the defendant constitutes a building, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the removal of the retaining wall is without merit without further examination of the remaining points.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is made, the right to enjoy sunshine and view.