1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts above, the defendant, while implementing the subway construction of this case, took all safety measures to prevent damage that may occur to the housing of this case while performing the subway construction work of this case, and paid careful attention and effort to do excavation work, etc., but neglected the duty of care to do so, causing equal heat in the housing of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the subway construction of this case, barring special circumstances.

B. 1) In full view of the facts on the basis of the damages on the housing repair cost of the instant case, the appraisal result of the appraiser F of the first instance trial, and the overall purport of the arguments in the response to the request for supplementation as a result of each appraisal, the instant subway Corporation has the same defects as the “damage Details” indicated below in the instant housing (hereinafter “instant defects”).

) The cost of repair incurred and the cost of repair incurred 62,545,510 won (hereinafter “cost of repair of the instant case”).

(ii)The construction period necessary for the repair of defects is 30 days or more. It is recognized that the details of the sectional damages are the cost of construction work (CONC). It is difficult to prevent the Plaintiff from using concrete structure purification concrete concrete structure : (i) the damage to the building caused by ground operation due to serious excavation work on the outside and front equal heat of one building (CONC), such as damage, rupture, rupture, and waste; (ii) the damage of external resistant bricks; and (iii) damage, rupture, rupture, and rupture; and (iv) the Defendant lost the purification function of sewage due to the subsidence inflow of ground among the reinforcement work, but the Defendant lost the purification function of sewage due to the rupture inflow of the ground; (iv) 57,1041 stories 2,350,300,000 and 16,383,499; and (v) the Plaintiff’s repair work was ruptured to the outer ceiling and the wall.