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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the second class neighborhood living facilities, the second class neighborhood living facilities, the second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground in the East Sea, and operates the instant building with the trade name “C” from the instant building.

From June 2015, the Defendant is a company that newly built the “E apartment” (hereinafter “instant apartment”) which is an aggregate building on the land outside D and 24 lots from the East Sea.

B. The instant building is the building located south of the construction site of the instant apartment, and the shortest distance between them is 15.4m, and the instant building and the instant apartment construction site, the freight train is installed between the instant building and the instant apartment construction site.

C. The Defendant’s assistant intervenor contracted the construction of the instant apartment with the Defendant, and reported on October 15, 2015, including a scattering dust generating project, etc., and commenced the base destruction and foundation construction after completing the specific construction report on January 29, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). [Grounds for recognition] The instant construction project is not in dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, 34 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion caused property damage, such as cracks of the outer retaining wall and the outer retaining wall of the instant building, the wall and the outer wall ruptures of the instant building, the wall and the mashing body, the side side of the cheon Timber Connection, and the inside rupture of the building.

In addition, due to the construction of this case, noise, vibration, and dust occurred in the building of this case, and the completion of the apartment of this case, the right to sunshine, view, and living of this case is infringed, and the value of the building of this case is likely to decline, and the plaintiff is suffering from extreme mental pain due to the construction of the apartment of this case.

In relation to the instant construction project, the Defendant did not take sufficient safety measures to prevent the Plaintiff’s above property damage and mental suffering, and the Defendant was due to the instant construction project pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act.