A. Plaintiff A is the owner (Plaintiff A lost the ownership of the building on October 13, 2015) of a multi-household house with the second floor of Ulsan-gu C wall-project slves slves roof (hereinafter “one building”) completed on August 24, 1990, and Plaintiff B is the owner of a two-story house with the D wall-project slves slves roof completed on April 23, 1991 (hereinafter “two buildings”).

B. On February 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract to remove existing buildings on the area of 1960 square meters, etc. adjacent to the building 1 and 2, Ulsan-gu E, Ulsan-gu, 1960 square meters; and (b) newly construct a building of 20 stories above the ground surface of the 1st floor (hereinafter “instant construction”); and (c) performed the instant construction work from around that time.

C. After the instant construction, defects such as rupture have occurred in the 1st and 2 buildings. D.

After that, although the defendant constructed the repair work for the above defects, there still remains only fracker defects in the building 1 and 2, the repair cost is KRW 8,777,960 in the case of one building, and KRW 12,62,171 in the case of two buildings, such as the details of the repair cost in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 5-12 evidence, entrustment of appraisal and entrustment of supplementation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs to bring an action against the plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of 2014, the Defendant agreed on around April 2014 to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 13,00,000 to the Plaintiff and KRW 19,000 to the Plaintiff B with the agreed amount of damage incurred by the instant construction work. The Plaintiffs shall not thereafter raise any objection to civil or criminal liability.” However, the Plaintiffs may recognize the fact that they agreed as above, except for the heat and damage inflicted on the 1 and 2 buildings at that time. 2 Plaintiffs claim compensation for damages caused by the rupture, etc. caused by the instant construction work, and therefore, the Defendant’s main defense of safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The defendant is an existing building.