Representative Market 000

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Doeng Law Firm, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee

Attorney 000

GUD

Seoul Place of Service

Representative Director 000

2. △△ Group Co., Ltd.

Kim Jong-si

Seoul Place of Service

Representative Director 000

3. Kim○-○ (48 - 1)

Seoul

4. △△ Group Co., Ltd.

Seoul

Representative Director,000

5.Glaver○ (60-1)

Seoul

Defendant 4,5 Attorney 000

6. △△△△ Group; and

Seoul

Representative Director 000

7. Longline (59 - 1)

Seoul

【Defendant 6, 7’s △△ Law Firm, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee】

Attorney 000

Defendant 6, 7’s sub-agent law firm △△

Attorney 000

8. △△△ Group Co., Ltd.

Seoul

Representative Director 000, 000

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

Attorney 000,000

2. The Plaintiff’s respective claims against Defendant A, △△△, △△, △△△, △△△, and △△△, Co., Ltd., and the Defendants as described in paragraph (1) are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/3 of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants listed in paragraph (1) shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 2/3 of the remainder by the same Defendants, respectively, between the Plaintiff and Defendant A, Defendant A Co., Ltd., △△ Agreement, B, △△△△△△ Group, Defendant △△△△, and △△△△, Co., Ltd., and △△△△△.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On February 00, 200, Defendant 1, the implementer of the joint housing construction project, Defendant 1, 1, 200, was approved by the Plaintiff to build a new apartment on the ground of 00 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gu, Gwangju. On April 00, 2002, Defendant 1 started with construction work on the above land of Dodong-dong, 9, 448 households on the ground of 15th and above (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”), and completed the construction work on July 0, 2005, and completed the approval for the use of the housing construction project.

B. The site of the apartment of this case was surrounded by Gu hill, except North Korea, and the site of cutting the surrounding mountainous district was created to build the site for the construction of the apartment of this case. The above defendant awarded a contract for the construction of the apartment of this case to the Do Do - limited company around 2003 in order to ensure the stability of the ground of cutting, which occurred in the construction of the apartment of this case (the contract was changed around May 00, 2004) and the defendant Do Do △ (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Do Do e-g Do e-g". The defendant was a director of Do e-mail at the time) constructed the ground of this case by subcontracting it from the above Do - and designing and constructing the cutting Myeong construction work on June 204, 204, and completed the cutting Do e-gm of the retaining wall of this case with the height of the retaining wall of 4m and 9m of the retaining wall of this case.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Defendant 1 contracted the management of the apartment building of this case from Defendant 1, 1, 2005, and Defendant 2 entered into an early inspection from Defendant 1, 3, 2005, and Defendant 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3.

D. On July 00, 2006, the completion of the instant apartment on July 00, 2006: around 00, the cutting surface was destroyed, and there was a serious crackion in the area located on the south side of the retaining wall that was adjacent to the cutting surface of the said apartment. Accordingly, on July 00, 2006, the Plaintiff designated the area where the instant apartment was located as a calamity risk district and issued an evacuation order to the residents of the said apartment (00 households) adjacent to the said retaining wall.

E. After that, on September 2006, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology Corporation to conduct a precise safety diagnosis of Dogsung apartment cutting surface and retaining walls. As a result of the precise safety diagnosis conducted by the Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology Corporation, the destruction factors of the cutting surface adjacent to the retaining wall of this case were found to be due to irrigation, geological and topographical factors, and artificial factors as follows.

(1) Repair factors (326mm on July 00, 2006, which is the day before the outbreak of equal heat, and 50 years in the area of Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si.

Since the frequency of 24 hours and 360m, this is similar to the strongest amount of the probability that may occur once every 50 years, since it is the 360mm of the probability of continuing 24 hours.

one level, and the standards for landslide warning by the National Disaster Prevention Institute (200mm or more of the cumulative daily rainfall, 140mm or more of the daily rain, and 140mm or more of the daily rain.

m) A large-scale collapse (281m) at the time of the abnormal weather of the Japan Road Corporation (281m) above

(2) Geological and topographical factors (the cutting surface of a ground shows the enhancement of substantial wind and the severe crushing, and cutting of ground in the state where the ground is cut.

G. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. 2) comprising a well developed letter and letter, and the surface number due to the nature of the valleyal features;

The ground intensity has deteriorated due to the continuous supply of groundwater, etc.

③ 인위적 요인 { 대규모 원호파괴 ( 圓孤破壞 ) 에 대한 검토의 누락 , 절토사면의 암층이 심하게 파

2. Whether the application of the Law of Sotiling is inappropriate for the interpretation of the stability of the definite, which is a definite in the offed state

F. As an administrative agency having jurisdiction over the instant apartment on July 00, 2006, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to participate in the restoration work of the retaining wall, etc. on the instant apartment on July 00, 2006, such as the instant apartment, but the said Defendant did not comply with the demand. However, the Plaintiff performed restoration work on the retaining wall and cutting surface of the instant apartment at its expense, and disbursed KRW 4,180,023,090 at its expense as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

F. Accordingly, on July 00, 2006, the Plaintiff urged the administrative agency having jurisdiction over the apartment of this case to participate in the restoration of the retaining wall, etc. on the above ground of the Defendant’s △△△, Defendant △△△, etc. However, the above Defendant, etc. failed to comply with this demand. The Plaintiff, as follows, performed restoration works on the retaining wall and the cut surface of the ground of the instant case at its expense and paid KRW 4,180,023,090 at its expense (which is the ground for recognition), did not dispute (which is the ground for recognition), Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6, and Gap evidence 24 (including the number of each subparagraph), and

A person shall be appointed.

F. Accordingly, on July 00, 2006, the Plaintiff urged the administrative agency having jurisdiction over the apartment of this case to participate in the restoration work of the retaining wall, etc. on the above ground, △△△, Defendant △△△, etc. However, the above Defendant, etc. failed to comply with this demand. The Plaintiff, as follows, performed restoration work on the retaining wall of this case and the cutting surface of the ground, and paid KRW 4,180,023,090 at the expense (which is the ground for recognition) without dispute (which includes the evidence Nos. 25, A25, A31, Eul evidence No. 25, Eul evidence No. 31, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 2, E-1-3, evidence No. 1-1, evidence No. 2-1, E-1-3, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No.

2. The allegations by the parties and their determination

A. Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants

The Plaintiff asserts the following grounds for the claim against the Defendants and seeks payment of the amount of money indicated in the claim.

(1) Exercising the right of subrogation following the performance of the liability for damages caused by a defect

As the executor of the apartment project of this case, the defendant Dol Dol is the person who designed and constructed the retaining wall of this case, and the defendant A is the representative of the above defendant, and the defendant Dol Dol was the person who conducted the initial inspection of the retaining wall of this case. The defendant Dol Dol as the representative director of the above defendant, and the defendant Dol Dol as the representative director of the defendant Dol Dol as the representative director of the above defendant, and the defendant Dol Dol Dol as the representative director of the above defendant, and the defendant Dol Dol was the designer of the above apartment of this case, and all of the defendant Dol Dol was the designer of the retaining wall of this case, and was liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the residents of the apartment of this case due to the defect in the retaining wall of this case. Since the defendants failed to perform this, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above construction cost subrogated to the plaintiff.

(2) Demanding reimbursement of expenses due to office management.

The defendants bear the intent to repair the rupture of the retaining wall of this case for the above reasons. Since the plaintiff, without any duty, spent expenses for restoration work on the retaining wall of this case for the defendants without performing restoration work, this constitutes administrative management. Therefore, the defendants are obliged to pay the expenses to the plaintiff as necessary expenses.

(3) A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

The Defendants are those who are obligated to repair the defects of the instant construction work as above, and the Plaintiff incurred losses by paying the retaining wall’s restoration expenses without any legal cause, and the Defendants gain profits, and thus, are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above restoration expenses to the Plaintiff.

(4) Exercising the right to indemnity against the joint tortfeasor

Since the rupture of the retaining wall of this case occurred due to artificial factors, such as erroneous application of public law to the city construction, the plaintiff and the defendant, who are involved in the construction of the retaining wall of this case, are liable for damages to the occupants of the apartment of this case as joint tortfeasor. Since the plaintiff performed restoration work of the retaining wall of this case and the defendants jointly exempted, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above restoration expenses as joint tortfeasor.

B. Determination as to Defendant Seocho-gu et al.

(1) Whether there were errors in construction, such as errors in construction methods applied to the construction of the retaining wall of this case

In relation to whether Defendant 1 bears the obligation to pay indemnity, etc. for the above reasons, it is necessary to determine whether Defendant 1 is the implementer of the instant apartment building, that is, the project undertaker who implements the construction project of the housing, and is in the position to assume the liability to repair the defects under the Housing Act (Article 46). However, as seen above, as a result of the safety diagnosis by the Korea Infrastructure Safety Technology Association, the application of the public law that does not fit the current state of the cutting site is pointed out as the equal cause of the retaining wall of this case. Thus, first, it is examined whether the application of Soil-Niling method is appropriate in relation to whether the crack of the retaining wall of this case was caused due to a mistake in construction.

31 According to the fact-finding on the 0th anniversary of the instant apartment site, the 0th anniversary of the 0th anniversary of the instant apartment site and the 3th anniversary of the 0th anniversary of the instant apartment site (including the 0th anniversary of the instant apartment site) and the 5th anniversary of the 199th anniversary of the 0th anniversary of the 3th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence 25, Eul evidence 12, and 13 as well as witness Eul's testimony, in other words, the following circumstances are determined as follows: ① Soil - Stiling construction method is highly applicable to Ntile destruction because the length of Ntil is short, while it is highly likely to cause deep destruction of activity; ② the site of this case is the site of this case's apartment, which is the site of this case's " very pleasure," there was a possibility of causing destruction similar to large scale's green-scale or soil, and there was a possibility of causing destruction similar to large scale's large-scale green-scale green-scale green-scale green-scale green-stiling construction method was applied to the design of the retaining wall of this case.

(2) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the mistake of the public law applied to the rupture of the retaining wall of this case

Next, as seen earlier, with regard to whether there exists a causal relationship between the application of the Ntiling method and the cracks of the retaining wall of this case, the occurrence of ruptures in the retaining wall of this case as a result of the safety diagnosis by the Korea Infrastructure Safety Technology Corporation is a combination of irrigation factors, geological and topographical factors, and artificial factors. Furthermore, with regard to the cutting surface of the apartment site of this case, the purpose of installing retaining wall of this case was to prevent the collapse of the cutting wall of this case, and the purpose of the construction of ruptures through the Ntiling method was to prevent the collapse of the cutting wall of this case; ② Sour - Sour - Other public methods, which are capable of enhancing the stability of the cutting wall of this case, (e.g., Earth Anor method) which can be strengthened more than that of the cutting wall of this case, the causation between the cutting surface of the apartment site of this case and that of the retaining wall of this case can not be seen as being applied temporarily to the retaining wall of this case.

(3) Scope of defect repairs

According to the analysis of the repair scope of the defendant 1, 1, 3, and 25, the maintenance and removal of the retaining wall and 130 meters in the front section of the cutting wall and 1, 2, 30-205 meters in the front section of the cutting wall of this case, the maintenance and removal of the retaining wall of this case is assessed as follows: the maintenance and repair section of the 3, 1, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 4, 1, 3, and 4, 1, 1, 3, and 1.

According to the above facts, since there exists a danger of collapse due to the decline of the ground cutting surface of the apartment site of this case, it is reasonable to view that there exists a defect in the cutting surface of the cut apartment site of this case, and that the defect was caused by mistake in adopting the cutting surface stabilization method that does not fit for the characteristics of the apartment site of this case as seen earlier. Therefore, Defendant 1, who is the project undertaker of the apartment of this case, bears the duty to repair the retaining wall of this case and the parts before the cutting surface of the retaining wall of this case as well as the retaining wall of this case.

(4) The ground and scope of the Plaintiff’s claim

In general, a third party, who is not a debtor, has a legitimate interest in the repayment of an obligation on behalf of a debtor, shall, as a matter of course, subrogate the creditor (Article 481 of the Civil Act). The plaintiff is a local government that approves the construction project plan of the apartment of this case, which is implemented within the jurisdiction of the supervisor, and carries out the duties such as the designation and inspection of the supervisor, and is in the position of the approval authority or supervisor with respect to the construction project of the apartment of this case. In particular, according to Article 31(4) of the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety, the head of the disaster management agency in the relevant area, who is the head of the local government, may order the tenant, manager or occupant to take safety measures with respect to the facilities or area where the risk of disaster is high as a result of a long safety inspection. If the person who is obliged to take safety measures upon receiving the order fails to carry out the order or is deemed unable to carry out the order, and if it is deemed urgent to prevent disaster, the plaintiff may collapse the above apartment of this case on behalf, etc.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s expenses incurred in repairing the retaining wall of this case and the cutting surface of the cutting surface on behalf of Defendant 1, 180, 023, and 090 (as stated in the evidence No. 25, the opening construction expenses for the retaining wall of this case and the cutting surface of the cutting surface can be recognized as having been causing 4.66,7 billion won, and it is difficult to view that the above amount was unduly excessive) are as seen earlier. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the defect repair expenses of 4,180, 023, 090 won and damages for delay.

(5) Determination on the assertion by Defendant △△△

(A) The assertion that the retaining wall of this case is not the executor of the retaining wall of this case

Defendant 1, who is not the executor of the retaining wall of this case, asserts that there is no warranty against the defect in relation to the retaining wall of this case. However, according to the provisions of Article 46(1) of the Housing Act, the executor of the apartment house is in the position of the project undertaker (including the owner who constructed the apartment house for the purpose of sale, and see Article 2(5) of the Housing Act) and is in the position of the warranty against the defect. Thus, the responsibility is not exempted solely on the ground that Dol-gu did not directly construct the retaining wall of this case by himself. Accordingly, the above defendant

(B) Claim that the retaining wall of this case constitutes a provisional facility

In addition, Defendant 1 asserted to the effect that Defendant 1’s liability for warranty against a project proprietor under the Housing Act refers to a defect in the proof structure. The retaining wall does not bear the liability for warranty against any defect in the household building which is not the proof structure. However, under the Housing Act, the project proprietor is not liable for warranty against the defect in the apartment building and its accessory facilities that it is not the liability for warranty against the defect in the proof structure (as shown in attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the period of warranty against the retaining wall is also stipulated in the attached Table 6 of the Housing Act).

(C) The assertion that the Plaintiff is responsible for the approval of the housing construction plan

Defendant 1’s assertion that Defendant 1 was responsible to the Plaintiff who approved the housing construction zone construction project in such an area, and Defendant 1 was not responsible to the Plaintiff. However, insofar as there is no proof as to the occurrence of a cause for liability, such as the Plaintiff’s intent or negligence in the process of approving the housing construction project, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is responsible for the crack of the retaining wall of this case solely on the ground that the Plaintiff approved the housing construction project. Accordingly, the above Defendant’s assertion that is premised on this cannot be accepted.

C. Determination as to Defendant △△△ and A

(1) The liability to compensate for the damage of the Defendant Dogsan.

In order to recognize the obligation to pay the above indemnity amount to the Plaintiff, it is necessary to first determine whether Defendant △△△△ as the design and contractor of the retaining wall of the instant apartment is in the position to repair the defects of the instant apartment or to compensate for the damages.

As a construction business operator who entered into a contract for the design and construction of the retaining wall of this case with Defendant Dog Ye, which is the execution business operator of the apartment of this case, he is obligated to adopt the method of stabilizing the retaining wall of this case and the construction site, such as surrounding circumstances and geological features, so as not to cause any defect. Nevertheless, as seen in paragraph (b) of 2. B, the above Defendant may determine the fact that there is any defect, such as rupture, etc., in the retaining wall of this case, due to the error that the Defendant adopted the method of removing the retaining wall of this case and performed construction.

Then, the Defendant Dog terms, as the executor of the retaining wall of this case, are obligated to repair the defects that occurred in the retaining wall of this case, and therefore, the Defendant Dog terms, on behalf of the above Defendant, have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the expenses.

(2) Determination on the assertion by △△△△

As to this, Defendant Dogggl requested the Plaintiff to change the retaining wall design of this case from the PEM public law to the Neil-Niling method. Accordingly, the Plaintiff held a technical advisory committee over several occasions and approved it after examining whether it is appropriate to change the PEM public law to the Niling public law, and whether the design stability is secured. Thus, Defendant Dogglggl cannot be deemed as having failed to properly review the appropriateness of the change of the survey.

According to the statements in the evidence No. 1, No. 3-2, No. 4-1, and No. 2, the plaintiff held several technical advisory councils from February 00, 2003, and discussed the consultation on the retaining wall construction method and the change of the public law. However, as seen above, there are not only the change of the above public law but also the omission of the review on the large-scale nuclear destruction, etc. on the ground of the rupture of the retaining wall of this case. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 412, it can be acknowledged that the Technology Advisory Committee did not examine the possibility of large-scale nuclear destruction even at the time of examining whether the change of the design from the PEM public law about the retaining wall of this case is appropriate.

Therefore, it is insufficient to view that the above defendant's liability is exempted solely on the ground that the △△△ Council obtained approval on the change of the design in the design, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above defendant's above assertion is rejected.

Next, Defendant Dogsung asserts that the construction cost of the retaining wall of this case is 3.5 billion won. Of the entire sections of the retaining wall of this case (500 meters), the section where rupture has occurred among the entire sections of the retaining wall of this case (500 meters), the Plaintiff reinforced the part where rupture has not occurred, and the repair method requires excessive construction to the extent exceeding the rupture repair scope, such as cutting down the mountain inside the retaining wall of this case, etc., and the cost of the construction is unreasonable. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff adopted the repair method presented at the time and applied for restoration work on the retaining wall of this case and cut rups of the retaining wall of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not accept the Defendant’s assertion that only the rupture has come out of the retaining wall of this case, on the premise that it would be sufficient for the Defendant to claim that the above rupture would be done.

(3) The ground and scope of the Plaintiff’s claim

As seen in the above 2. B. (4), the Plaintiff, as a general approving authority or supervisor for the design and approved construction of the apartment of this case, has a legitimate interest in repairing defects on behalf of the above Defendant. As such, the above Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost for the retaining wall of this case, KRW 4, 180, 023, 090, and delay damages therefor.

(4) Whether Defendant A is liable for damages

The plaintiff is merely responsible for the defendant A, who is the representative director of the defendant Dog-gu, in the construction of the retaining wall of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is without merit.

D. A claim against the Defendant △△△ and B

(1) The parties’ assertion

(A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant Dogsan conducted an initial safety inspection of the retaining wall of this case. The Defendant’s error as follows, thereby causing a defect of rupture in the retaining wall of this case.

1. ① In the initial inspection, the above Defendant’s safety rate of the retaining wall of this case 1.5 was specified as 509 when she dry up the retaining wall of this case, and deemed that 1.5% was above the base rate. According to the results of the precise safety diagnosis conducted by requesting it to the National Infrastructure Safety Technology Corporation after the rupture of the retaining wall of this case occurred, the safety rate was remarkably lower than 1.12, which was determined on January 12, 199.

② The Defendant determined that there was no structural defect even though rupture and water leakage, etc., which are important signs in the retaining wall of this case, were appeared together.

③ Since multiple problems, such as rupture, separation of materials, brusation, and water leakage, occur in some sections of the retaining wall of this case, the above defendant who conducted an initial safety inspection conducted an additional investigation and conducted an initial safety inspection but did not affect the structure despite the fact that the main causes should be discovered.

④ At the time of the initial inspection, the above Defendant conducted a full prior investigation and a ground and geological survey. On the other hand, the Defendant did not do so even if he had to carefully examine the amnesty activities and the water leakage of structures, etc. and pointed out to prevent future problems.

In addition, Defendant B, the representative director of the above company, provided the causes of rupture in the retaining wall of this case by giving illegal or improper official instructions or implied consent to conduct the safety inspection.

Therefore, the above Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned remuneration cost.

(B) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

The initial inspection conducted by the Defendant Doe-gu is different from the precise safety diagnosis conducted by the Korea Infrastructure Safety Technology Corporation. The geological survey and ground survey and exploration conducted in order to seek early attention required at the initial inspection conducted by the Korea Infrastructure Safety Technology Corporation were conducted in good faith, and there was no responsibility for the initial inspection conducted, such as substitution of the ground survey conducted on three occasions at the time of the construction design of the instant Art, under the agreement with the Defendant Doe-gu.

(2) Determination

(A) Whether the Defendant’s liability for damages was borne by △△△△△

We examine whether there is negligence in the course of conducting the initial inspection of △△△△△△△, or the inspection was not conducted faithfully.

According to the construction safety inspection guidelines (No. 32 evidence, and in addition, in order to apply to the safety inspection conducted under Article 46-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation (this is determined and publicly announced at present) pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act, the safety inspection conducted under Article 46-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act shall not be less than the level of regular safety inspection under Article 46-4(1)2 of the same Enforcement Decree (Article 46-4(1)2 of the same Enforcement Decree). At the time of the regular safety inspection, the inspection includes the inspection of the safety of temporary facilities and temporary construction methods for the safe construction of the object (Article 32(c) of the Construction Technology Management Act). In addition, in addition, in the case of the early inspection, the head of the administrative agency or the head of the administrative agency notified the construction safety inspection results, such as the preparation of the appearance and death level of the entire structure necessary for the construction and the early construction inspection (Article 46(4).

According to Gap 28, 29, Eul 31, Eul 1, 2, Eul 6, 7, and Eul 10, and Eul 10 each (numbering 20, 900, 900, and 00 won (this amount is less than 16,000,000,000 won at the time of a thorough safety contract with the Korea Infrastructure Safety Technology Corporation; hereinafter referred to as "the above service contract was concluded to be made to be put in order for the above improvement of the function of Eul 1, 2, 36, and 7; Da 10, 300, and 10,000, which were written in order to examine and improve the safety of the retaining wall at the time of the latest inspection and maintenance of the retaining wall, and 1,000,000, which were written in order to improve the safety of the retaining wall at the time of the inspection and maintenance of the ground, and 2, the analysis and scope of the retaining wall at the time of the inspection.

It can be recognized that the inspection report is prepared to the effect that the durability and use of the repair measure will continue at the time of withdrawal.

However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence No. 2 and the overall purport of testimony and oral argument of the witness E, the above body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the evidence.

In the above facts, ① the initial inspection conducted by the above defendant is to seek an early value, which serves as the basis for the safety evaluation for the maintenance, inspection, and extinguishment after completion, after preparing the overall conditions of design and the overall structure of the structure which mainly inspects the damage on the ground, and then finds any defects difficult to be easily discovered through a thorough inspection conducted by the precise apparatus, etc.; and there are many differences between the precise safety diagnosis and the precise safety diagnosis to suggest the method of repair and reinforcement thereof; ② The collapse of the retaining wall and the cutting of the cut surface of the retaining wall of this case is the temporary installation of the retaining wall of this case and the cutting of the cut surface of this case, which is the result of the stability construction of the retaining wall of this case and the cutting of the cut surface of this case.

The ground of the apartment site itself seems not to have a problem in the retaining wall construction and cutting of the ground. ③ The safety review of the retaining wall and cutting of the ground of this case conducted around September 2006, after the collapse of the retaining wall of this case and the cutting of the cutting wall of this case. As a result of the safety review, it is difficult to view that the safety of the apartment site was less than the minimum safety rate even at the time of the above early inspection of the defendant Dolgg (the difference between the initial inspection performed by the above defendant and the safety rate of the precise safety diagnosis conducted by the Korea Infrastructure Safety Technology Corporation). Since it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s request for restoration work is difficult to view that there was a difference in the initial inspection of rainwater and ground level, and there was no possibility that the Plaintiff’s initial inspection of the retaining wall of this case was conducted at least the minimum safety rate, and there was no further possibility that there was an initial inspection of the retaining wall of this case. (4) It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s request for restoration work at 0000 percent of the retaining wall of this case.

(B) Whether Defendant B is liable for damages

The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is without merit without need to further examine, on the ground that there is no other evidence to support the fact that Defendant B issued unlawful or unfair instructions while examining the safety of the retaining wall of this case, Defendant B, the representative director of △△△△△△△△, or that there is no other evidence to support the fact that he committed an illegal act.

E. A claim against Defendant △△△ and C

(1) The parties’ assertion

(A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

While performing the housing construction supervision service of the apartment of this case, Mail - He neglected to confirm whether the change of the apartment of this case is appropriate with the Ntiling method, and did not fully examine the conditions of the soil, and imposed measures to prepare for the possibility of large-scale destruction of original resources. Defendant C, the representative director of the company of this case, who is the representative director of the company of this case, committed unlawful and unfair work orders, or impliedly committed the act of violation. Accordingly, the above Defendants’ failure to perform such supervision, caused the crack of the retaining wall of this case, and the Plaintiff restored to this, the above Defendants were liable to pay the restoration expenses to the Plaintiff who subrogated to the occupants of the apartment of this case.

(B) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

The principal obligation of the above defendant, a construction supervisor, is to confirm whether the relevant construction work is executed in accordance with the design documents, and cannot be deemed to have a duty to review the scope and method of geological surveys, which are the premise of design, daily, and as long as the amendment of the public law was determined by the △ Consultative Council on Technology in △ City, there is no duty of care to review it from the beginning.

(2) Determination

(A) Whether the Defendant’s liability to compensate for the damages of △△△△△

We examine whether the Defendant Dolsan neglected the supervision over the construction of the instant apartment and failed to perform its duty.

Article 33-6 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002, repealed by the enactment of the Housing Act) provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation approves the housing construction project plan under Article 33(1) of the same Act, he shall designate a person who shall supervise the relevant housing construction project as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Paragraph 1), a person designated as a person to supervise the housing construction project shall conduct the supervision as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, including whether the contractor executes the housing construction project in conformity with the design plan and drawings, and a person designated as a person to supervise the housing construction project shall conduct such supervision as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, including whether the contractor executes the housing construction project in conformity with the design plan, without delay, notify the contractor and the project undertaker of the fact that the violation is corrected within seven days, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall, upon receiving the corrective notice, immediately suspend the construction project in question and report it to the Minister of Construction and Transportation within seven days.

In addition, Article 34-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 17115, Jan. 29, 2001) provides for the supervisor's duty to verify whether design documents are appropriate for the relevant topography, etc., to confirm the appropriateness of design changes, to examine and confirm construction plans, scheduled work schedule, work schedule and work execution drawings, etc. In accordance with the detailed criteria (No. 33 evidence) for the housing construction supervision service notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to the above provisions, the supervisor shall jointly investigate the ground and geological conditions of the ground and take necessary measures, such as formulating measures following the performance of his duties.

In full view of the overall arguments in the testimony of Eul 1, 3, 4, and 5-1, 2, Ga 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (including each number), and the testimony of the witness E, the defendant Seosan entered into a supervision agreement with the construction company of the apartment of this case on February 00, 2002. The above defendant entered into the supervision agreement with the plaintiff on March 0, 200 to May 2005 on the new construction of the apartment of this case. The main purpose of the agreement was the following facts, and the defendant's construction work is the management support for the construction work of the apartment of this case and the construction work of this case, which is the supervisor of the management of the apartment of this case, and the construction work of this case, which is the management support for the construction work of this case. The plaintiff on March 0, 202 to May 205.

A person shall be appointed.

A. The Plaintiff’s construction work at the construction site of △△ is to be conducted on 3 occasions, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13 (including each number), and the Plaintiff’s testimony of the witness, based on the overall opinion of the Plaintiff’s construction work at the construction site, to verify the appropriateness of the construction site of this case, and the Plaintiff’s construction work at the construction site of △△△△△, which is the executor of the apartment of this case, submitted to the Plaintiff on February 00, 202. The Defendant prepared a construction work report on the construction site of this case from March 0, 202 to May 1, 200, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the construction site of this case, and prepared a construction work report on the construction site of △△△△, which is an official responsible for the construction of the apartment of this case, with the consent of the Plaintiff, and prepared a construction supervisor’s construction work at the construction site of this case, for the purpose of the construction site of this case.

In the above facts, ① it is necessary to determine whether the necessity of the design change and the content of the design change are consistent with the relevant field conditions, and it does not mean that the supervisor has a duty to review from the beginning all the matters that constitute the design element in the same manner as the designer, so it cannot be deemed that the scope and method of the geological survey, which serves as the premise for the design, cannot be viewed as having a duty to review every day. ② The proportion of the task of reviewing the appropriateness of the retaining wall of this case is not high within the scope of the supervision of the Defendant △△△△△ operated. ③ The retaining wall of this case had already been conducted three times in the vicinity of the retaining wall of this case, and it was determined by the Technology Advisory Council based on the data of the laboratory experiment at the time of the design change. In such a case, it is difficult to view that the supervisor had a duty of care to review the appropriateness of the change of the public law from the beginning. ④ In the case of the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for the design change of the retaining wall of this case is difficult to view that there is no reason to acknowledge the need to examine the content of the above.

(B) Whether Defendant C is liable for damages

The statement No. 30-3 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant Dol terms and conditions, issued unlawful or unfair instructions in performing supervisory duties, or impliedly committed an illegal act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

F. A claim against Defendant Seocho-gu

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the retaining wall construction of this case forms part of the apartment construction of this case, and that the defendant △△△△ was negligent in verifying the safety of the retaining wall structure of this case under the Building Act while designing the whole apartment of this case, and thus, it is responsible for the equal heat of the retaining wall of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff who performed restoration work of the retaining wall of this case is obliged to pay the restoration cost of the retaining wall of this case to the plaintiff who performed restoration work of the retaining wall of this case.

Therefore, under the Building Act, a designer of the retaining wall of this case was prepared under his responsibility (including the case where an assistant's assistance is received), and the design document of this case was prepared, referring to a person who reads, provides guidance about the design document (see Article 2 (1) 13 of the Building Act). However, as seen earlier, in around 2003, △△△△△ ordered the design and installation of the retaining wall of this case to the △△ LLC, a contract was made to the △△ LLC, a limited company around 2003, and Defendant △△ △△ LLC was given a subcontract from the above △△, and the design and construction of the retaining wall of this case was conducted around June 2006, and the Defendant △△ LLC was entirely not involved in the design and construction of the retaining wall of this case (However, the retaining wall construction of this case was included in the lower project about the entire construction of this case, and it can be recognized that the above design and construction work of this case was made under the name of Defendant 6.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the design of the retaining wall of this case was not included in the design of the apartment of this case, for which Defendant 1 was awarded a contract, and the above defendant cannot be deemed as having prepared the retaining wall of this case under his own responsibility solely on the ground that the design plan of the retaining wall of this case had the seals affixed to the design of the retaining wall of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant of this case premised on this cannot be seen as having been without any need for further examination.

G. The relationship between the responsibility for each of the following items: Defendant 1 and the liability for each of the following items

As seen earlier, Defendant 1’s construction project of the apartment of this case is between the implementation of the apartment of this case, and Defendant 1 Dogggdong is the one designing and constructing the retaining wall of this case, and Defendant 1 bears the duty of repairing the same damage to the equal heat of the retaining wall of this case. Thus, the above Defendants’ repayment obligation is based on the same factual basis that the collapse of the retaining wall of this case and the ground cutting surface of the cutting wall of this case caused the collapse of the retaining wall of this case. Thus, this obligation is based on the same factual basis, which is jointly and severally liable.

(h) limitation on liability;

Meanwhile, in a case of damages caused by a tort, if the damage suffered by the victim is caused by competition between natural power and the tortfeasor's negligence, it is reasonable to limit the scope of compensation for the tortfeasor to the remaining portion after deducting the portion deemed to have contributed to the natural power in relation to the damages from the perspective of fair burden of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da734, Jun. 27, 2003, etc.). Since liability for warranty is based on the principle of fairness, the scope of compensation for damages should be determined in consideration of the occurrence of defects and the contribution to the expansion thereof, as long as it is based on the principle of fairness, the guiding ideology of the Civil Act.

According to the statement of evidence No. 25 and witness E, there are concentrated rain, geological factors, and artificial factors for the collapse of the rupture and the cutting of the retaining wall of this case. Among them, the main cause of A is July 0, 2006, the day before the rupture of the retaining wall of this case occurred, which is the day before the rupture of the retaining wall of this case, and the fact that the above rupture was the rupture of 360mm equivalent to the 50-year rupture 24-hour rupture of the Dolle area of Dolle City. Thus, in consideration of this, the rupture is limited to 60% of the responsibility of Defendant Dolleg and Dollegdong.

I. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1’s 2.5 billion won, 013, 854 won (4.180, 023, 090 won x 60%) respectively, and as requested by the Plaintiff, the above Defendants, from August 0, 2008 to May 00, 2009, are liable to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until May 00, 2009, which is the day following the day on which the written application for the renewal of claim of this case was served by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant △△, △△△△, is partially accepted for reasons only within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the above defendants, and each claim against the defendant A, OOOO, B, △△△, C, and OO terms are dismissed as all of the claims are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jae-young

Judges Kang fixed-term

It is a public law that makes it resistance against earth pressure.

2 ) 층리의 최소단위로서 , 구성물질의 입도 ( 粒度 ) , 조성의 차이로 생긴 세밀한 줄무늬이다 . 이암 , 셰일 , 세립 사암에서 흔하게 발견

(2).

3) Artificially filled-up strata means strata.

4) means the strata formed by a winding and roof action over a long period of time.

5) It means the strato whose Mola cancer changes into the original location by means of winding action and remains in the original location.

6) Neither the Malaco whose Malaco is winded and changing into soil means the geological layer of a transitioned state.

7) The mix of rocks is changed, cut and rupture is cut, and the surface of the rocks is changed, and the rupture around the rupture or rupture is changed, and the inside of the rocks is changed.

means the state in which the person is in a state.

8) As a percentage of cocoin recovered from the city collection map, indirect reflection of the crypical crypology and crypology of rocks is made.

9) If the recovery rate of cocoa is less than 20 per cent, it shall be classified into climatic cancer, lead cancer, and light cancer with heavy crushing (see A25 No. 7.2-3 of the No. 25).

10) Of the co- children recovered from the city collection map, it is marked as a percentage for the city collection map of not less than 4 "the total length of co- children" and the relative of cancer.

It reflects the state of grance, grheat, etc., and if the cancer index is from 0% to 25%, the quality of cancer is indicated as very poor. The numerical value is 10%.

Hain, it shall be classified into cases where crushing is very heavy (see Evidence No. 7. 25 - 3 of Table No. 7.125).

11) The marble, the marble and ruptures are fast, and the inside of the surface changes, and the strength of the original rocks is changed from the surface, and the strength of the marite.

In comparison, it means the weak state of Acrypt. The meaning that the intensity of Acryptian is weak means that the cryptian or cancer is very weak.

means.

12) The new rocking compression robbery, R. Q.D., the distance of non-speeded surface, non-speeded surface, the degree of non-speed surface, and the volume of groundwater inflows of the new rocked rocked rocked rocked rocked rocked rocked knife and non-speeded knife.

It shall be classified into category 5 by the sum of the flat points corrected by the heading and slope, and it shall be estimated that the heading and the internal finishing angle are occupied according to the base class.

of the corporation.

13) Assessment items and balance points are identical to that of the RR classification method, and the criteria for revision of the grade point shall be non-speed, non-speed, the main direction angle of the theft surface, and the non-speed, non-speed, in the event of the flat destruction.

The correlation between slope angle, influent surface, and slope angle, are subdivided according to the theft method, and the classification method.

14) Stability is completely unstable, and large-scale diversives of destruction or similar destruction of earth layers appear.

15) If the base class is Va, it is recommended by the reinforcement method that there is a double-power type or poppy, re-explosive, and re-explosive.

16) If the cutting height of the cutting height with a high operating voltage is so high that the retaining wall alone cannot resist the earth pressure, when the retaining wall alone is unable to resist the earth pressure, it shall be installed to resist the earth pressure with the seal capacity of the poppy strawer.

It is the limited public law.

17) Determination of the status evaluation grade and the safety evaluation grade shall be based on the lowest level, and the safety evaluation of the cut saf shall be based on the result of a stable interpretation.

It shall be classified into three levels in total, such as D and E that meet the standards for Class A and the standards that are not met.

18) When designing a structure, the design must be made in such a way that it can withstanding the power to be completed for each part, so that there are several times for the power to be completed in the absence (materials).

In consideration of whether it is seaworthy, this rate shall be the safety rate.