1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount that orders payment from the following point of view with respect to a counterclaim is given by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) and runs accommodation business with the trade name “E” in the said building.

B. The Defendant Korea Gas Corporation is an owner of LNG’s main pipelines construction works between Ulsan and the ultra-speed, and Defendant KS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant KS Construction”) is the contractor of the said construction, and Defendant Y is the subcontractor of the construction works of Section 3 among the said construction works.

C. From February 22, 2011, Defendant SDR construction and Defendant CDR industry

2. By December 28, 200, files were buried underground on the front road of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim of this case, the Plaintiff strongly performed vibration construction without installing any safety device despite the fact that the ground of the building of this case was weak while Defendant SK construction and chemical industry engaged in the construction of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for KRW 100 million as part of the property and mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ tort, and damages for delay.

However, according to the results of the on-site inspection of evidence Nos. 5-3 through 8, 9-1 through 14, 10-1 through 6 of the evidence Nos. 5-9, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance, according to the part of the appraisal by appraiser B and C of the first instance trial, there is a cohesion in the part of the building of this case, and the part of the wall of this case where the part of the wall of this case and the extended wall are separated, and the fact that the part of the wall of the wall of this case is damaged, can be recognized. However, there is no evidence to prove that such rupture was caused by the construction of this case, and rather, evidence No. 8 of this case is proved.