207 Gaz. 13007 Compensation

NewO

Law Firm Doz.

1. ○○ Housing Reconstruction Project Association;

Law Firm Doz.

2. ○ Construction Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Doz.

April 2, 2008

April 30, 2008

1. Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff 12,771, and 00 won with 5% interest per annum from February 24, 2007 to April 30, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant ○○ corporation and the defendant ○○ Housing Improvement Project Group's claims against the defendant are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd. shall be five minutes, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff; the above Defendant, while the part arising between the Plaintiff and the ○○ Housing Reconstruction Project Association, by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 20,840,00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the last copy of the complaint of this case to the day after the judgment of this case is rendered, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant ○○ Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) is the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City 1

On the ground, a reconstruction project cooperative is an owner of land and second-story housing (hereinafter referred to as "land and housing owned by the plaintiff") located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City adjacent to the above land, and adjacent to the above land.

B. On January 13, 2005, the Defendant Cooperative contracted the above apartment construction to ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”). On March 19, 2005, the Non-Party Company subcontracted the construction of the above apartment construction to Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd.”) during the above apartment construction (hereinafter “the instant apartment construction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Claim against the defendant company

(1) Evidence A 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 11-2, each of Gap evidence 4-1 through 14, Gap evidence 4-2, the on-site inspection results of this court, and the appraisal results of appraiser Park ○.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in division, IT land, etc. in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City consists of the soil-to-soil, sedto-soil, and sulto-soil up to 15 meters in depth, and the fact that it is a very weak ground for the above apartment construction site. At the construction site of the above apartment, the above apartment construction site was installed with a sway system, underground water contamination scheme, modified rate system, building slope system, rupture measurement system, surface subsidence, but it was within the permissible limit, but there was a change during the construction period, and housing was also located around June 4, 2007, which is the date of the verification of this case.

The following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendant Company used 5 to 20mm to the right side of the instant construction site; (b) damaged the land owned by the Plaintiff and the road 3 meters wide between the instant construction site and the instant construction site; and (c) the Defendant Company resisted the ground of the instant construction site by means of an Ouger (auger) through which vibration can be minimized; and (d) the Defendant Company resisted by entering the file to the support base; and (e) the Defendant Company resisted the file by filling the scrap (the YT method is a method of excavating the ground by cutting the scrap, and thus, vibration does not occur at all, and the ground of the instant construction site is very weak and thus, it cannot be found that there is no evidence to acknowledge this; (c) the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is not reasonable; and (d) evidence Nos. 4, 5, 18 through 4, 100 and 7, each of the aforementioned evidence No.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant company did not take sufficient reinforcement measures while engaging in the ground-breaking and file-breaking business in the middle ground, and caused the ground subsidence and vibration to the land and housing owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant company is an illegal actor, who is obligated to compensate for damage caused by the construction work in this case, to the land and housing owned by the plaintiff.

(2) As to this, the Defendant Company first asserted that, while entering into a subcontract with the Nonparty Company, the Defendant Company is not responsible for the Defendant Company since the Defendant Company agreed to assume the responsibility for civil petitions arising from noise, dust, vibration, etc. which frequently occurred due to the instant construction, while entering into the instant subcontract with the Nonparty Company. However, this is merely a determination of the internal responsibility sharing between the Nonparty Company and the Defendant Company, and thus, it cannot be exempted from the liability for damages by the Defendant Company directly involved in tort. Therefore, the Defendant Company’s above assertion is without merit, without having to consider any other issues.

Then, the Defendant Company asserted that the Defendant Company is not liable because it was under the direction, management, and supervision of the supervisor. However, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff is liable for damages to the supervisor, the Defendant Company, a direct offender of the tort, cannot be exempted from liability for damages. Thus, the Defendant Company’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Claim against the defendant union

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant association is jointly and severally liable to compensate the defendant company for the high-priced damage caused by the construction work of this case as the implementer of the new apartment construction project of this case. However, there is no evidence to determine the person who ordered the construction work of this case to whom the defendant association specifically instructed and supervised the construction work of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant association is without merit.

3. Scope of defendant company's liability for damages

(a) Expenses for repairing defects recognized;

If the purport of the entire argument as a result of appraiser Park ○○’s appraisal is added, the cost of repairing defects, such as cracks, generated from ground subsidence and vibration (1) indoor part of the instant house + KRW 5,940,00 in outdoor part of the instant house + ③ KRW 12,771,00 in the present house.

(b) Expenses for repairing defects not recognized;

(1) According to the appraiser Park Jong-○’s appraisal result, even though it is deemed that the cost of KRW 748,00 was required at the repair cost of the part of the instant house, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the part of the instant house was damaged due to the instant construction work, and rather, if the entire purport of the pleading was added to the witness’s testimony of Eul 5, Eul 3-1 through 8, and Eul 3-3, and the witness’s testimony, the Plaintiff’s house fence was collapsed in the process of demolishing the Plaintiff’s previous house’s land and house, and the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million as the repair cost, and the Plaintiff did not collapse from April 12, 2006 after the completion of the instant construction, but the Plaintiff’s allegation that the said part of the instant house was collapsed on June 4, 2007, which is not the verification date, can be deemed as the Plaintiff’s ground for recognition.

(2) The fact that rupture, etc. of the instant housing occurred due to the instant construction project is as seen earlier, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the instant construction project caused damage to the electric part of the instant housing solely on the basis of the appraisal of the breakdown caused by the leakage circuit by an appraiser Park ○○. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the said part is without merit, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from February 24, 2007 to April 30, 2008, which is the day following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as compensation for damages to the Plaintiff, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant company and the defendant union are dismissed for each reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges