(a) The case that the existing building and the extended building are one building;

(b) Ordinary damages in cases of damage to a building due to a tort;

C. Claim for damages to buildings or consolation money

A. The instant house consists of the existing building with 41.59 square meters of 1st floor, 41.59 square meters of 23.80 square meters of 2nd floor, which is an existing building connected with cement brick structure, 46.64 square meters of 1st floor, 2nd floor 11.60 square meters of 2nd floor, and the existing building is composed of cement brick structure, 3 main rooms, bathing rooms and living rooms, and the extended building is divided into one room and one kitchen, but not by structural independence, but by adjoining the building through one wall, the extension of the said extended building is not an extension by the intention of the existing building, but an extension is different from the existing building, and the existing building is not an extension by the person who has extended the building, and the existing building is not an extension by the existing building but an extension by the person who has extended the existing building, the existing building is to be used in the form of the existing building and the existing building is to be used in the form of the building and the existing building.

B. In a case where a building is damaged due to a tort, if it is possible to repair it, the cost of repairing it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the exchange value would be normal damages.

C. In general, in a case where a property right is infringed due to a tort of another person, mental suffering shall be deemed to have been recovered by compensating for such property damage, but if a property damage is not recoverable by compensating for such property damage, it shall be deemed to be a damage due to special circumstances, which can be recognized as consolation money. However, if it is recognized in light of the empirical rule that a house living in the plaintiff was damaged by underground excavation work, and the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to such shock, apprehension of residential life, etc., it is reasonable

(a) Article 99(b) of the Civil Act; Articles 763 and 393(c) of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 72Da2235,2236 delivered on Nov. 28, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 78Da1820 delivered on Feb. 27, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 81Da88 delivered on Nov. 22, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 69Da201926 delivered on Nov. 24, 1970

Plaintiff

Jung-gu, Sung-gu et al., an incorporated foundation, and one other.

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2660 delivered on October 5, 198

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendants.

As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal:

1. Sub-building theory consists of extension of the existing building with the existing building section 2. It is unlawful for the court below to regard it as one unit of building without reasonable reasons despite the fact that the existing building is composed of extension of the existing building section 2. It is also possible for the court below to determine the number of the building as damages equivalent to the amount of the repair cost. It is not only the physical structure, but also the objective circumstances such as the state of the building observed as the object of transaction or use, but also the subjective circumstances such as the will of the building constructor. (See Supreme Court Decision 4293No623, Nov. 23, 1961; 64Ma678, Nov. 28, 1964) to be separated from the new building section 2. It is not possible for the party members to extend the existing building to the extent that the new building section 2. It is not possible for the court below to view the existing building to have been separated from the new building section 3. It is also possible to extend the existing building section 17.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the amount of damages per construction cost, such as remuneration, etc. for the housing of this case suffered by the plaintiff due to excavation work should be calculated on the basis of July 1985, which is around the time of this case, shall be KRW 9,781,388. However, according to the result of the appraisal by the non-party as adopted by the court below in recognizing the above amount of damages, it is clear that the amount equivalent to the construction cost, such as remuneration, etc. for the housing of this case as of July 1985 is KRW 8,310,043 and the amount of damages recognized by the court below as the construction cost on the basis of May 198. Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is an unlawful act that recognized the facts without evidence, and this constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the defendants' assertion pointing this out

According to the records, among the above construction cost of KRW 8,310,043, the above construction cost of KRW 497,025 shall also be known that the construction cost of the existing building of this case includes KRW 497,025, and the court below recognized that the above construction cost of the existing building of this case is the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the underground excavation work of this case, it is acceptable and there is no error of misconception of facts or

3. In general, in a case where a property right is infringed due to a tort of another person, mental suffering shall be deemed to have been recovered by the compensation for such property damage, but in a case where a property damage is unable to be recovered by the compensation for such property damage, it shall be deemed that the consolation money may be recognized as damage due to special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da2016, Mar. 31, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 70Da2826, Feb. 9, 1971;

See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1096 delivered on March 22, 1988

As determined by the court below in this case, if the house of this case, which the plaintiff resided in the ground excavation work, was damaged to the extent as determined by the court below, it shall be recognized in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to its shock and apprehension of residential life, etc.

As above, the judgment of the court below is not reversed, and this part is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals by the defendants are dismissed. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)