beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.09.28 2015가단10075

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,458,675 as well as 5% per annum from June 10, 2015 to September 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2002, the Plaintiff installed a retaining wall and a Dok for the maintenance of vehicles on the land south-gu Busan, Nam-gu B, and was engaged in automobile maintenance and the detailed business.

B. Around 2014, the Defendant built a new building of the 4th basement and the 19th floor above ground in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, which is adjacent to the third secretary general operated by the Plaintiff.

C. As a result, soil pressure and water leakage phenomenon, corrosion, etc. occurred due to the impact of the Plaintiff’s construction on the construction of the said building, including the ground-breaking for construction of the said building, and accordingly, the retaining wall installed by the Plaintiff, and the floor and Do of the third party site were ruptured.

It was confirmed that 15,458,675 won was required for the rupture repair of the retaining wall, floor, and Dok.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, appraiser D's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remuneration cost of KRW 15,458,675, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from June 10, 2015 to September 28, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, from June 10, 2015 to September 28, 2016, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant is also obligated to pay the Defendant’s new construction of the building among the ruptures generated in retaining walls, etc., and such rupture is not distinguishable from the rupture generated by the Defendant’s construction. Thus, the Defendant’s construction of the new building and the rupture shall be excluded from the subject matter of damages compensation.

The results of the appraisal response to appraiser D are likely to cause ruptures due to the passage of large vehicles entering the site for the third secretary site, and they are due to the passage of useful life.