1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, in addition to the determination of the defendant’s argument, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the appraisal result is unjust since the Plaintiff’s statement and the abstract side of the appraiser’s appraisal of the Plaintiff’s building were conducted without objective data, as the Plaintiff’s construction of the building was 30 years old, and it is apparent that various ruptures, ruptures, and ruptures had already occurred. Thus, even if the Defendant constructed the building on the adjoining land and caused defects in the Plaintiff’s building, it is necessary to confirm the Plaintiff’s building condition before the construction of the building in order to specify the defects in the causal relation with the Defendant’s new construction.

B. However, the appraiser’s appraisal result must be respected unless there exist significant errors, such as the appraisal method, etc. is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012). The appraisal by the first instance court was conducted two years after the commencement of construction of the building.

It is difficult to view that there is objective data to verify the condition of the Plaintiff’s building before about two years from the appraisal date.

In the same situation, it is inevitable for the appraiser of the first instance to appraise the defects based on the plaintiff's statement and the state of the plaintiff's building, etc., and there is no reason to deem that the appraisal method is against the rule of experience or unreasonable.

In addition, in calculating the amount of damages equivalent to the cost of repairing defects, the first instance court seems to properly reflect the situation that the plaintiff's building was deteriorated due to limiting the defendant's responsibility to 60%.

Defendant’s assertion.