1. Defendant Unauthorized Construction Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 80,654,480 for the Plaintiff and its related amount from September 12, 201 to July 4, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land located in the Gyeongbuk-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”) and the maintenance plant on the ground.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) awarded a contract for the construction of a complex site for nine parcels, such as Gyeong-gun, G, etc. adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant construction”). Defendantless Construction began the instant construction work from February 2011 to February 2, 201 in accordance with the said contract.

C. On September 12, 2011, when Defendantless Construction continued the instant construction, an accident under which the ground subsidences around the office building, which is an affiliated building to the said maintenance plant (hereinafter “office building”) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred. Accordingly, the following damage was inflicted on the office building and its surrounding land, etc.

There is no dispute over the content of the damage caused by division, the sculp and the sculp and the studio. The opening and closing of the toilet entrance that the board and the windows should not be opened, closed, and closed. The wall and the floor sculp and the wall rupture of the inspection room for the removal of the walls and the floor rupture, the wall rupture of the inspection room for the unuseable septic tank, the pipe rupture of the front rupture of the rupture factory, and the rupture of the front rupture of the rupture plant. The result of the on-site inspection by this court, the appraiser E in the Daegu District Court 2011Ka1608 case for the preservation of evidence (hereinafter “first appraisal”), the purport

2. The cause of the instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff occurred due to the failure to take measures to ensure the safety of neighboring land, such as retaining walls installation and surface reinforcement, when Defendantless Construction performed cutting construction among the instant construction works. Defendant B was negligent in supervising the construction of Defendantless Forest, the contractor, even though it was a person who is obligated to supervise the construction of Defendantless Forest. As such, the Defendants suffered from each of the instant accident to each of the Plaintiff.