1. The defendant

(a) Plaintiff B, C, D, E, H, I, J, P, R, S, T, and AA respectively 1,00,000 won;

B. Plaintiffs G and M, respectively, 500.

On November 2013, the Defendant commenced an apartment construction work (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction work”) on a parcel of land between Ulsan-gu AC and 177, Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, and completed the said construction work on April 20, 2016.

After the construction of this case started, the occupants of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AD apartment (hereinafter referred to as the apartment of this case) located in the construction site of this case filed a civil petition with the competent authority regarding noise, dust, etc. of the construction site.

The Defendant received an order from the competent authority to take measures for preventing scattering dust and for failure to install a facility for preventing scattering dust on November 25, 2014, to implement measures on March 11, 2015, to issue a warning and to suspend use, to impose an administrative fine (600,000 won) on March 11, 2015, to suspend use on February 19, 2016, to order to suspend use on March 16, 2016, and to implement measures on March 16, 2016, on the ground that noise from the construction of the instant case exceeds the standard (65dB) set forth in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. On the other hand, the Defendant was subject to an order to implement measures or to suspend operation and to impose an administrative fine six times from May 18, 2014 to June 29, 2015.

There is no evidence that the Defendant took measures to prevent noise, dust, etc. on the apartment of this case at the time of the construction work of this case.

On August 25, 2016, the General Affairs Association of the instant apartment urged the Defendant to pay the “compensation of KRW 800,000 per household” to the occupants of the instant apartment on August 25, 2016. The Defendant also expressed his intent to pay the compensation for each household (3.50,00 won per household) in addition to the defect repair of the apartment in order to resolve the civil complaints of the AF apartment residents located immediately adjacent to the instant apartment on February 2, 2017.

The above facts do not conflict between the parties.

The following are examined only one of the plaintiffs' claims.

1. The plaintiffs are damages caused by the crack of the apartment of this case, ground subsidence, etc., and the defendant's construction work of this case.