A. The Defendant is a contractor who received a contract from C Co., Ltd. for a new construction work of an apartment with the size of 1,144 square meters underground and 15 stories above ground (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. The plaintiff on March 4, 2005

The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 3, 2005 with respect to the 105 square meters of 50 square meters in the Jeonnam-gun E-do, Jeonnam-gun and its ground located immediately adjacent to the land located adjacent to the port, and cement brick brick, brick structure, reticulator roof 105 square meters in the ground, for sale and purchase on March 3, 2008. On June 12, 2008, the two-story buildings (359.91 square meters in the office of the general steel structure, 212.2 square meters in the single steel-frame structure (multi-household), were newly constructed on the ground and obtained approval for use.

C. Around August 31, 2016, the Defendant started the instant construction, and thereafter, there was rupture, etc. on the wall, roof, floor, front end, etc. of the instant building owned by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) Each of the evidence mentioned above is determined as to the cause of the claim. The following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of appraiser F’s appraisal results and the purport of the entire arguments. i.e., the Defendant did not conduct a prior investigation into the buildings expected to be damaged due to the instant construction work, including the instant building before performing the instant construction work even though the instant building was located 2 meters away from the construction site and the instant construction site, and ii) the Defendant carried out the construction of a board by directly cutting the sloping beam beam in the construction method of underground ground-breaking work during the instant construction work. The Defendant appears to have caused substantial vibrations of the instant building and the disturbance of the ground of the instant building; iii) the appraiser F appears to have occurred in the construction process of the instant concrete building, such as the instant building.