logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.03.07 2015가단79092
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,994,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 13, 2016 to March 7, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant was awarded a contract for the aforementioned construction work from the gardening industry (hereinafter “garden Industry”) as a contractor of the 10th above ground level E on the 10th above ground level in Busanjin-gu, Busan, C, and D (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

The above E building was approved for use on January 9, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of a building not registered with the third floor above the F of Busan Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”). The instant building is adjacent to the northwest of the construction site.

C. From around 2012, the Defendant performed underground excavation works in the process of performing the instant construction. There were a large number of cracks, water leakages, etc. on the interior walls, ceilings, etc. of the instant building.

The Plaintiff filed a civil petition for damages caused by the instant construction work with the Busan Jin-gu Office several times.

On September 2013, 2013, around November 2013, the gardening industry received a public notice from the Busan Jin-gu Office to withdraw the repair, etc. for the damage of the building of this case, and consultation with the Plaintiff on the side of the repair work and the compensation for the damage while performing the partial repair work, but did not reach an agreement.

The plaintiff himself/herself performed the repair work for painting and waterproof work for non-building walls, etc. and the repair work for the bottom of the first floor toilet.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1-5, 2-1 through 5, 3-5, and 3-5 of evidence Nos. 1-5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, in the process of performing the instant construction, the Defendant is deemed to have caused damage, such as rupture, water leakage, etc., to the instant building adjacent to the construction site due to the impact of vibration, etc. generated at the time of new construction due to the failure to fully take all measures to prevent rupture, etc. on the instant building owned by the Plaintiff, such as securing the separation distance of the instant building and new building, installing sufficient

arrow