beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.10.14 2019나2399

건물보수공사비용

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owns Daegu Suwon-gu D and one parcel of land E-Ba F, and is residing in the above heading. The Defendant is a person who owns G heading located immediately below the above F and resides in the above heading.

B. From December 2017 to February 2018, the Defendant carried out the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of G (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant extended a long-term period of two months exceeding the ordinary level of interior works.

In particular, the Defendant, while removing the total floor of Gho Lake and replacing boiler pipes, did work to shoulder the floor concrete in order to replace the existing pipes with the PVC pipeline, caused strong noise and vibration while removing and constructing the bathing room concrete. Accordingly, the Defendant demand 20,550,000 won in total to repair the pipes inside the Fho Lake owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above repair cost of KRW 20.55 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant only performed interior interior decoration construction at a normal level, and did not perform construction to generate indoor cracks to the extent claimed by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff

It is difficult to see that the apartment house is the upper floor of the defendant's house, and the indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior of the defendant's house, and the crack of the plaintiff's house was 25 years since the Eved in this case was constructed and constructed in 192, and it was due to the construction of the high-rise apartment that was conducted for 2 years from Eved immediately next to Eved in this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is unreasonable.

3. Each description and image of Gap evidence of No. 3, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 22, 24 through 31 (including the number of pages) shall be examined as to the cause of the claim.