1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), the Defendant Korea Gas Corporation, the owner of the LNG pipeline construction work between Ulsan-Stenographic early, and the Defendant END Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant END”) are the contractor of the above piping construction work, and the Defendant END Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant END Industry”) was awarded a subcontract for Section 3 construction work (hereinafter “instant pipeline construction work”), which is the part adjacent to the instant building, including the neighboring areas of the instant building, among the above piping construction work.

B. From February 22, 2011 to around the 28th day of the same month, Defendant SK Construction and the Defendant Crife the file on the ground for the instant pipeline construction in front of the instant building (hereinafter “instant file construction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion KS construction and chemical training industry are weak in the file construction of the instant building, Defendant SP construction and chemical training took an unreasonable vibration construction without installing any safety device even though the ground of the instant building was weak, and thereby, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to compensate for KRW 100 million as part of the property and mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to such rupture, as well as damages for delay.

B. According to the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 video (including paper numbers), and the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, it is recognized that only part of the building of this case was rupture, but there is no evidence to prove that rupture was caused by the file work of this case, and rather, there is no evidence to prove that rupture was caused by the file work of this case.