2013Da66027 Damage, Claim

The person who received the lawsuit from the deceased A

1. K;

2. L:

Sam Donggsan Inc.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Na12380 Decided July 11, 2013

September 10, 2015

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) was awarded a new construction contract with the Plaintiff on July 2005, 1, i.e., joint Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as the “B”) for the 18 square meters high-rise house (hereinafter referred to as the “instant house”); (b) the Plaintiff supplied part of the necessary timber from the Plaintiff’s side and newly constructed the instant house; (c) the floor area of the instant house and the basic retaining wall was 29 meters high-rise, the river site, the river site, the H boundary; (d) the Defendant jointly performed work for gathering earth and rocks from the instant house from the Han-si, Han-si, the construction of the instant house from April 2008 to December 2, 2009 in order to collect earth and rocks; (e) the Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the appraisal and vibration construction of the instant house, which caused a large number of defects, such as the walls walls and walls, and the structural and structural defects of the instant house 60% high-class building.

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of liability for damages, the lower court determined that the damages caused by the defect of the instant house are the amount equivalent to the new construction cost, which is deemed an exchange value of the instant house, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the violation of the boundaries of the river site; (ii) it is difficult to predict the impact of the instant house in the event of the occurrence of damages on the basis; (iii) the degree of the defect of the instant house cannot be readily concluded that the repair and the repair alone could ensure its safety; and (iv) it appears that the instant house is a case where the repair and the use of it is impossible.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the instant house was in the process of new construction at 29 meters or more of the boundary of the river site, and the removal of the part in violation thereof, the safety of the remaining part cannot be ensured, and thus, it seems that the entire instant house cannot be removed. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant’s blasting work had influenced the basic part of the instant house in the course of the collision of the river site.

Therefore, even if the defect in the house in this case (except where the basic part of the house was affected by the river site boundary; hereinafter the same shall apply) occurred or expanded due to the Defendant’s blasting work, in order to recognize the Defendant’s liability to compensate for the amount equivalent to the new construction cost, which is deemed an exchange value of the house in this case, it should be the premise that the repair should be impossible even with the defect in the house in this case.

However, even after examining the record, there is no evidence to find it impossible to repair only due to the defect of the instant house, and rather, the appraiser of the first instance court responded to the fact that it is impossible to repair only due to the defect of the instant house, and that it is not necessary to remove and newly construct the instant house.

Therefore, the damages equivalent to the newly constructed construction cost of the instant house are difficult to be deemed as damages in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s blasting work. The lower court determined that the Defendant is liable for compensating for the amount equivalent to the newly constructed construction cost, which is the exchange value of the instant house. This goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, and thereby, erred in the misapprehension of

3. Therefore, without examining the Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

Justice Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il