손해배상(기)
1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),
A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is from November 19, 2013 to KRW 1,618,988 and its amount.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of F-ground reinforced concrete structure and brick sloping roof 4 stories and housing, 1st floor neighborhood living facilities, 91.38 square meters living facilities, 2nd floor neighborhood living facilities, 96.6 square meters living facilities, 3rd floor residential facilities, 96.6 square meters living facilities, 96.6 square meters of 4th floor, and 96.6 square meters of 4th floor living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”). Defendant B and C are the owners of 1/2 square meters of 636.1 square meters of 7th floor in Siri-si, Siri-si, and are the owners of 103 square meters of H lending (hereinafter “instant 103 square meters”). Defendant D and E are the owners of 1/2 equity shares of 105 square meters of 1/102 square meters of 365 square meters in Siri-si, and are the owners of the above land, and the owner of the building “H lending” (hereinafter “101 Dong”).
B. The building of this case is part (b) of the separate drawing indication, and the loan of this case 101 is part (a) of the same drawing indication, and the loan of this case 103 is part (c) of the same drawing indication.
The instant building was approved for use on or around September 5, 1991.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraisal result by the appraiser J, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim did not take preventive measures against the instant building owned by the Plaintiff, which was adjacent to the construction site of the instant building, to newly construct the instant loan from June 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction”). As such, the Plaintiff did not take any preventive measures against the instant building, due to the instant construction work, there were equal heat on the wall and floor of the instant building, water leakage in the underground floor, and the lease contract was terminated by the lessee of the instant building due to dust and noise caused by the instant construction work. As such, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff the repair cost of the instant building, the amount of damages, consolation money, and damages incurred therefrom.