1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,812,355 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 5% per annum from October 7, 2014 to January 12, 2016.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. From June 2014, the Defendant: (a) removed existing buildings on the land of 333 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; and (b) newly built a detached house (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff owns a building of 211 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) adjacent to the said detached house, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, and the same adjacent thereto.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defect in the building of this case occurred due to the construction of this case by the defendant, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the defect.

In full view of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties, the evidence No. 1-1, 2-4 of the evidence No. 1-2, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the appraiser E’s appraisal of defects, the defendant’s construction of this case caused defects as shown in the attached Form to the building of this case, and the repair cost can be acknowledged as a total of 10

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

B. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cost of electrical construction (i.e., the construction of the instant building due to the Defendant’s assertion, was ruptured on the instant building; and (ii) the number of buildings of this case was incurred as at September 8, 2015.

Along with the water leakage, the Plaintiff had no choice but to replace the electric power distribution unit. As such, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for a total of KRW 2,830,000 for the construction cost of the electric power distribution.

The written evidence Nos. 1-3, 2, 5-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 3, and 4-1, 5-2, 3, and 4, and the result of the appraiser E’s defect appraisal are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s electric distribution of the instant housing occurred due to the instant construction, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the instant construction works, the Defendant shall pay damages to the Plaintiff KRW 10,812,355 and the instant damages.