A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 3rd floor building on the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Defendants are the executors of the “E apartment third-party 1,” which are newly constructed next to the instant building.

B. Around July 2016, the Defendants commenced the construction of underground stations for the new construction of the E apartment, and the instant building began while performing the construction of underground stations.

Accordingly, around January 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants determined the construction cost of KRW 38.5 million (including value-added tax) and agreed that the Defendants return KRW 38.5 million to the Plaintiff when it is revealed that the Defendants’ use of the instant building was due to the destruction of underground spaces in the course of the reinforcement work.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”) c.

In accordance with the agreement of this case, the Defendants performed a reinforcement work on the building of this case, and during that process, it became clear that the Defendants’ act of putting the building of this case was caused by the underground excavation work of the underground base.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to jointly and severally return 38.5 million won for reinforcement works of the building of this case to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement, and Defendant B is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 31, 2018, and Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 22, 2018 to the date of full payment.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant agreement was made by coercion of the Plaintiff, and thus, is null and void. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion.

3. The decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded.