1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that (1) the collapse accident of this case occurred concurrently between the defendant and the traffic-related person (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's side"), and that the plaintiff has contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the collapse accident of this case, and that the ratio of liability between the plaintiff and the defendant's side is 40:60, and (2) the plaintiff's claim for damages equivalent to the cost incurred due to the collapse accident of this case is based on the premise that the collapse accident of this case occurred under the unilateral negligence of the defendant's side, and that the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to 60% of the cost incurred due to the restoration of this case's 236,696,000 won, which is 60% of the defendant's liability ratio of the defendant's side, 142,017,600 won, 30% of the damages claim of this case 】 40% of the total damages claim of this case 】 30840% of the defendant's damages and 484848.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The judgment below

According to the reasons, after the collapse of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant temporarily calculates the restoration expenses of this case to 826,50,000 won, and bear 227,232,00 won, 224,320,000 won, and 374,948,000 won, respectively.