1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The "Appraiser" in the 2nd, 15th, 5th, and 18th, respectively, shall be respectively referred to as "Expert of the First Instance", and the "this Court" in the 2nd, 15th, and 5th, 18th, shall be referred to as "Court of the First Instance", respectively.

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court is " November 2, 201" in Part 14 as " November 2, 2012."

On the 10th of the first instance judgment, the term "the date of pronouncement of this judgment" in the 9th of the first instance judgment shall be "the date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment".

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court is added to the following part:

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) the ground of the instant building itself is weak; (b) the Plaintiff did not perform the construction for the ground strengthening at the time of construction of the said building; (c) unlike the design drawing, the Plaintiff illegally extended the 5th floor above the ground surface and remodeled the 1st floor above the ground into a parking lot; (d) while the Defendant completed pre-safety inspection and completed an investigation on the surrounding building and completed the instant construction as a reasonable construction method; (b) so, the cause for the instant building to be constructed is entirely the Plaintiff; and (c) there was no causal relationship with the instant construction, and there was no reason attributable to

According to the evidence, such as the evidence above, it is recognized that the building of this case was part of the building of this case before the construction work of this case as seen in the above acknowledged facts, and it is recognized that the building of this case was part of the building before the construction work of this case.

However, the evidence mentioned above-mentioned facts, the fact-finding results of the Busan High Court's Busan High-gu Office and the purport of the entire pleadings can be considered as a whole.