The residence was sued by the neighbor for changing the internal door to the external door. The court ruled that the original direction of the entrance door should be restored.

Gao and Li\’s houses are in a similar state, and the doors of the two clients are very close to each other. The original type of the house is an internal door, but Gao did not see the obstacles between Li and the property company and was interested in it. The inner door is changed to the outer door. Li had no choice but to sue Gao to the court. Shenzhen Longrong Court reviewed that, based on the house account pattern and the photo, Gao changed the house door to a method of opening it out without consensus with Li, which was indeed a safety hazard. When Li\’s servants entered and exited. At the time, if you happen to encounter Gao or someone who opens the door, it is easy to cause people to be hit and injured; after the door of Gao\’s house is changed to an open door, it occupies public corridors and public space.

To this end, the court ruled that Gao should restore the opening direction of the original entrance door, change it to an internal door, and bear the expenses for dismantling and changing the door by himself. The judgment is currently in effect. The court pointed out that if water use, drainage, passage, and pipeline installation are used in a relatively inactive manner, the relevant non-property should be avoided as much as possible.

Text/Reporter: Articles of Association

Telephone Member: Shenzhen Law Propaganda

Source: Guangzhou Daily