손해배상금
1. The order of the judgment of the first instance, including the claim extended by the plaintiff in the trial, is modified as follows.
The judgment of "1. Basic Facts" and "2. Judgment on the cause of the claim" / The grounds of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance /
A. The part of "liability for damages" is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff asserts that the scope of removal of additional construction expenses within the scope of liability for damages is due to the defendant's measurement error that the building in this case should be removed and re-construction within 0.5 meters from the boundary of the land in accordance with Article 242 (1) of the Civil Act as well as the part that directly intrudes on the adjacent land. The defendant asserts that there is no reason to remove the part that invaded the area within 0.5 meters from the boundary of the adjacent land in accordance with Article 242 (2) of the Civil Act due to the plaintiff's commencement of construction and completion of the building.
According to the results of fact-finding on the court of first instance and the head of the court of first instance, Article 59(1)1 of the Building Act provides for exceptions to Article 242(1) of the Civil Act, which provides for the construction of a building at a distance of not less than 0.5 meters from the boundary of the land. However, this case’s building does not constitute such exceptions, and thus does not constitute a part of the adjacent land boundary, so long as the building does not entirely remove the area within 0.5 meters from the boundary of the adjacent land.
In light of the above circumstances, regardless of whether the owner of neighboring land is entitled to file a claim for removal under Article 242(2) of the Civil Act with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot remove all the parts adjacent to the area within 0.5 meters from the boundary of the land in order to use the building of this case lawfully with the approval of use by the competent administrative agency. Therefore, in order to remove the parts and re-confiscing them in line with the construction-related laws and regulations, additional expenses incurred by the Plaintiff constitute damages caused by the Defendant’s measurement error, i.e., incomplete performance of obligations.
Other defendant's .