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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of multi-household housing in the Geum-gu, Busan, and the multi-household housing was completed around 1986.

B. Around June 20, 2017, the Defendant, as an urban gas installation company, performed excavation works of urban gas underground pipelines of buildings adjacent to the above multi-household house.

C. After that, the Plaintiff stated that the above multi-household household outer wall was damaged due to the above excavation work, and that the Defendant would be able to repair the damaged part.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each film of Gap evidence 1 (including each number), Gap evidence 2, 3, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant carried out the above excavation work without disregarding the safety of the above multi-household house, and caused rupture and damage to the outer wall of the above multi-household house, thereby causing considerable monetary and mental damage to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff property damage compensation and consolation money, such as the cost of repairing the parts of the wall per unit, the cost of removing the existing other days, the cost of attaching the same kind of other days, and the safety inspection cost.

B. According to the video of the evidence No. 1-1-8, it is recognized that the Defendant engaged in excavation works by selling a narrow channel between the above multi-household house and the next building, and that part of the outer wall of the above multi-household house in the vicinity of the construction site is golding, and that there is a shaking of the fact that some of the outer wall of the above multi-household house in the construction site is far away from the other day.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone did not cause equal heat to the above multi-household house before the outside date of the construction works, and that the above excavation works were damaged or ruptured.

As recognized earlier, the Defendant’s speech that the Plaintiff would repair part of the other day in which the equal heat occurred is an intentional responsibility for the fact that the construction was conducted in the vicinity of the above multi-household.