beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가단133291

손해배상

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,262,409 as well as 5% per annum from June 1, 2013 to February 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a multi-household house with the fifth fifth floor above Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant house”).

B. On July 11, 2012, the Defendant started the construction of the instant officetel building on the land outside C, and two parcels adjacent to the instant house, as a construction contractor who was awarded a contract for the construction of DNA Rospys building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The Defendant’s execution of the instant construction led to the rupture or deepening of the location of the instant housing site.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant defect”). 【No dispute exists, each entry or video set forth in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, and Eul’s Evidence No. 1 (including attachment of a serial number), the appraiser E’s appraisal result, and the result of appraisal and supplementary, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, while carrying out the construction of this case, had a defect in this case in the housing of this case at his own expense, and therefore, he is obligated to compensate for the damage incurred therefrom.

In regard to this, the Defendant performed his duty of care as a constructor by using low noise method low vibration machinery so as not to cause damage to neighboring houses while performing the instant construction work. The Defendant asserts that the instant defect was caused by the deterioration of the instant house in which 10 years have elapsed since it was newly constructed irrespective of the instant construction work.

B. In full view of the judgment, E’s appraisal results and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the construction of this case was ruptures or existing ruptures of the housing of this case due to the construction of this case. In executing the construction of this case, the Defendant failed to perform the construction without any damage to neighboring housing and was obliged to perform the construction by selecting a method to minimize damage to neighboring housing residents, and caused the crack of the building of this case or expanded the building of this case.