2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the old-si Si C land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and the Defendant is a company that operates the land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) with the trade name “D”.

B. On March 7, 2016, the Defendant removed the existing building to build a new warehouse, and re-built the Plaintiff’s building wall near the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same), Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, while removing the existing building from the Defendant’s land, dumpeded the Plaintiff’s land with due care and collapseed the wall on the Plaintiff’s land.

Due to the above act of the defendant, the articles that the plaintiff had kept in the building were destroyed, and the defendant constructed again while restoring the wall, but did not restore it to the original state in an enclosed form.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the value of the goods damaged by the damages, the walls, and roof repair costs, KRW 11,041,00, and damages for delay.

3. In a claim for damages caused by tort, the assertion of the occurrence of damages and the burden of proof are only effective against the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s evidence submitted by the Plaintiff appears to have been prepared voluntarily by the Plaintiff, the evidence alone destroyed the wall and destroyed the goods indicated in the list of No. 3, and the fact that the Defendant did not properly repair the wall and the roof.