손해배상(기)
1. As for Defendant Taeho Construction Co., Ltd, Defendant Taeho Construction Co., Ltd., the Plaintiffs each amounting to KRW 1,000,000 and the aforementioned amount from July 2, 2015 to July 2, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A is the owner of K Apartment No. 3, 102, 202, 302, 302, 302, 302, 402, 502, 602, and 602 of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”). Plaintiff A is the owner of the same apartment of this case with each of the above apartment units owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above apartment units of this case”), Defendant G, and H are the owners of 1,037 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”) adjacent to the third unit of the above K apartment unit (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”), Defendant G, and H are the owners of each 1,207 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”).
B. On January 30, 2015, Defendant G and H entered into a construction contract with Defendant Taecheon-gun Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Taecheon-gun Construction”) to construct two multi-unit houses on the instant land (hereinafter “instant multi-unit houses”). Around that time, the construction contract was concluded with Defendant Taecheon-gun Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Taecheon-gun Construction”).
Around July 2015, Defendant Taeho Construction completed the two multi-family housing units of this case with the 7th floor size on each ground.
[Ground of recognition] 1, 3 through 5, 7 evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, and 7 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. The plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant G and H are the owner and owners of the instant collective housing. Defendant I (hereinafter "Defendant I") actually constructed the instant collective housing, and Defendant Taeho comprehensive construction is the construction works of the instant collective housing.
By constructing the instant apartment units on each side of the instant apartment units owned by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs suffered infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, the right to view view, and privacy that had been previously enjoyed, which exceeded the tolerance limit, and the damages suffered from noise, dust, vibration, etc. in the course of the new construction of the instant apartment units (hereinafter “instant construction”).
Therefore, it is true.