beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,237,200 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 22, 2016 to August 25, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a building with a size of 224 square meters and its ground in Daejeon-dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).
(2) On August 27, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for the removal of the building adjacent to the instant building, Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “Adjoining building”) and carried out the removal work.
3) While the Defendant was carrying out the removal construction of a neighboring building, it was installed so as to be softened that it destroyed the wall and roof slate of the instant building by sponsing it to the instant building. As a result, there was a water leakage phenomenon on the floor height and the wall lighting wall inside the instant building. 4) The expenses (including additional dues) incurred in repairing the defects therefrom are as follows.
The fact that there is no dispute over KRW 13,196,00 in total of KRW 3,039,122 in the height of the floor of the 2nd building caused by the removal of the adjacent building of No. 1,156,878 [1,00 won] of the 1,2, A’s evidence No. 3-1 through 3, A’s evidence No. 4-1 through 3, No. 4-1, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 4-1, No. 1, and No. 1, the result of the appraisal entrustment to appraiser D by this court, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. According to the above-mentioned facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 13,196,000 won and delay damages.
3. Limitation on liability; and
A. If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, such reason must be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor's compensation. In calculating the ratio of negligence between the two parties, all circumstances related to the occurrence of the accident should be sufficiently considered in light of the purpose of the system of fair burden of damages. The fact-finding or setting the ratio of the damage should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.