1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 142,409,00 and 5% per annum from March 17, 2013 to February 5, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each building listed in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant one house” and the building listed in the attached Table 2 is the owner of the instant two houses).

The Plaintiff purchased the instant two houses from June 6, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 13, 2014.

B. Defendant Shee Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Shee Construction”) carried out the construction of a new building D on the ground (hereinafter “instant new construction”) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and 17 square meters, adjacent to each of the instant houses.

C. On March 17, 2013, when Defendant Nam Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nam Engineering”) was performing the construction of underground excavation and soil facilities at the construction site of the instant new construction site on March 17, 2013, the ground collapse accident occurred in the Northwester Team section.

(hereinafter “instant collapse accident”).

D. On June 13, 2014, B, who was the owner of the instant two housing, transferred to the Plaintiff all the instant two houses damaged by the instant two houses that were incurred in the construction of the main complex building constructed on the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, and 17 parcel, and notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims on July 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 6, 8, Gap evidence 10-1, 10-2, Eul evidence 1, the appraisal result of appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The Defendants are obliged to pay due care to take corresponding safety measures to prevent damage to neighboring buildings by performing ground excavation works among the new construction works of this case, taking into account the relationship with neighboring buildings, ground condition, etc.

However, the Defendants neglected this duty of care.