The defendant's KRW 9,573,967 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 21, 2020 to December 24, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D hotel (hereinafter “Plaintiff hotel”), and the Defendant is the owner of the above E hotel (hereinafter “Defendant hotel”).

Plaintiff

A hotel is a building of 2nd and 10th above ground, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on August 29, 2005, and the defendant hotel is a building of 2nd and 11th above ground, and the outer wall of each of the above hotels is closed by drart method, and the interval of each of the above hotels is about 1.8 meters.

B. At around 12:00 on September 7, 2019, a typhoond with Defendant 7’s outer wall of Defendant hotel, causing damage to Plaintiff’s outer wall by falling off with the Plaintiff’s outer wall, and there was an occurrence of an accident that damages three glar-plates installed at the entrance of Plaintiff’s hotel’s underground parking lot (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The damaged part of the plaintiff's outer wall due to the accident of this case shall be as shown in the attached Form 1.

C. After the instant accident, the Defendant carried out the construction of fixing the Plaintiff’s outer wall dynaV as an hyna V.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8, 11, 12, 3 through 10, and 10 evidence Nos. 3 through 10 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the evidence adopted prior to the determination of the cause of the claim and the overall purport of the argument by the appraiser F, even after the Defendant’s appraisal of the appraisal result, the fact that there remains damages to the Plaintiff’s hotel outside wall, installed at the entrance of the lower court and the underground parking lot, and that the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 9,573,967 (2,641,448, and KRW 6,932,519,000,000,000,000 won (2,641,448, and KRW 7,000,000,000)

The above fee construction cost reflects the reduction rate of 44% to 46% in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff hotel is a building newly constructed in 2005, and after the defendant's above promotioncarV construction and repair work.