1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,013,427 as well as 5% per annum from August 25, 2018 to December 17, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the building on its ground (strings and colonies and coagutics, and the approval for use on January 17, 1974; hereinafter “Plaintiff building”).

B. The Defendant, as an owner of 177.5 square meters away from the above Plaintiff’s land boundary, removed the Gu building on the above land from the second half of 2017, and newly built the aggregate building (multi-household living facilities on the 6th floor of the steel reinforced concrete structure) (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The vibration, etc. caused by the instant construction, caused a fluorial and fluorial erosion (hereinafter “instant defect”) on the outside wall, fence, and inner wall of the Plaintiff’s building. D.

The Plaintiff entered into a technical service contract with E around July 2018, which was after the completion of the instant construction, and paid a total of KRW 3.3 million at around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 15, 16 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1, and Eul's appraisal result and whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. In full view of all the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant is obliged to take appropriate measures, such as construction of soil so as not to cause damage to the Plaintiff’s building due to vibration, etc. generated in the construction process of the instant case, but the Defendant failed to take such measures so as to lead the Plaintiff to suffer defects, such as the spawning and subsidence of walls in the Plaintiff’s building. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for such damage.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser F’s appraisal of the scope of liability for damages, the following facts are revealed: 19,681,586 costs for repairing the defects of this case by repairing ruptures caused by the walls, etc. of the Plaintiff’s building and by strengthening the ground.