1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is the owner of the 7th floor building and the 5th floor building on the F-ground of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Defendant B and C are co-owners of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s building.

Defendant B and C contracted Defendant D with the construction of new business facilities and apartment houses on G’s land (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The defendants shall perform construction work after sufficiently predicting the damage inflicted on the neighboring building by making a prior investigation and preparing sufficient measures.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not properly investigate the adjoining land and take safety measures and carried out the instant construction work.

As a result, the basic ground of the building owned by the plaintiff was invaded, and there was a defect such as building, rupture, and rupture.

Therefore, Defendant D is the contractor, and Defendant B and C are the employer who actually directed and supervised the instant construction, and the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages (i.e., defect repair cost of KRW 257,486,199, ② the cost of replacing air conditioners, ② the cost of KRW 45,000,000, ③ the cost of attorney-at-law in the case of the suspension of construction work, ③ the cost of KRW 12,000,000, ④ the survey and safety diagnosis cost of KRW 25,00,000, ⑤ the damages of KRW 19,000,000, ⑤ the damages of KRW 19,00,000).

2. Determination ① As of July 23, 2013, a member of the conciliation division (a professional architectural structural engineer) maintains the ground of the building owned by the Plaintiff as of the date of the on-site investigation, and there is no problem regarding the structural safety of the building owned by the Plaintiff.

If a building gets a light or gets a part of the foundation, it is not possible to find such signs despite the fact that there is a slope rupture rupture suspected of being invaded by a load bearing wall, etc. which is a major structural part.

Plaintiff

It seems that substantial portion of rupture existing in the connection passage of the building owned had already existed before the construction of this case.

(2) The appraiser I stated that most defects occurring in the Plaintiff-owned building.