logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.08 2019나22861
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the allegations made by the defendant in this court. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. It is unreasonable for the court of first instance to recognize the fact by adopting the above appraisal result as evidence and to recognize part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, inasmuch as the Defendant’s appraisal result by the Defendant’s assertion appraiser G is based on the conjection without any scientific basis.

B. The result of the appraisal by the judgment appraiser should be respected unless the method of appraisal is against the rule of experience or is so unreasonable that the method of appraisal is against the rule of experience.

(1) The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s construction of this case’s wastewater buried under the ground of this case’s building and sewage flow into the instant building on December 11, 2014; and that the Plaintiff’s construction of soil would inevitably change the surrounding soil shed, and thus, the lower court’s appraisal result on appraiser G of the first instance court on March 14, 2019. According to the appraiser G, the lower court’s appraisal result on appraiser G of the instant building: (a) confirmed that wastewater continuously flows into the underground floor of the instant building; and (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s construction of this case’s sewage and sewage flow to the instant building on the ground of the instant building due to the destruction of sewage control units; and (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s construction of this case’s sewage and rupture between the instant building and the instant building cannot be readily concluded as having affected the construction of soil erosion around the instant building; (d) the construction of the instant building’s ground and the instant building’s structure cannot be determined as unnecessary.

arrow