beta
Text
1. The Defendants were to each of the Plaintiffs KRW 3,857,692, as well as Defendant C from January 3, 2013; and Defendant D from January 3, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are owners of F, G, J land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) at the time of strike, and the Defendants are owners of land that is adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) as shown in the attached Form.
B. On October 201, the Defendants constructed a fence (hereinafter “instant fence”) on the boundary of the Plaintiffs’ land and the Defendants’ land. From April 2012, the Defendants began to collapse part of the instant fence, and the building owned by the Plaintiffs was shocked and ruptured inside and outside the relevant building.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims
A. (1) Since the determination on the plaintiffs' claim for prevention of disturbance is likely to still collapse, the defendants are obligated to perform construction works necessary to prevent danger to the land owned by the plaintiffs.
(2) According to the appraiser K’s appraisal result, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3 and video, and the result of this court’s on-site inspection, it is found that the repair for preventing the decline of safety and securing the durability was necessary due to rupture on the instant wall. However, according to the record and video of the evidence Nos. 5, the Defendants deemed that the repair work for the rupture of the instant wall was performed from March 14, 2014 to March 16, 2014, and there is no evidence to support that additional risk prevention work is needed in addition to the aforementioned construction.
The plaintiffs' claims for this part are without merit.
B. (1) The Defendants asserted as to the claim for damages destroyed the inhalers owned by the Plaintiffs while installing the instant fence, and as the instant fence collapses, there was a rupture in the building owned by the Plaintiffs.