1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from January 17, 2015 to October 30, 2015 and October 31, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns the site and the ground house indicated in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant house”), and the said house is a house approved for use on February 10, 1960.

B. On September 5, 2012, the Defendant was the owner of the site indicated in the attached Table 2 list, adjacent to the Plaintiff’s real estate, and was subject to approval for use on March 12, 2013, after removing the existing building on the said site (hereinafter “instant existing building”) and starting the construction of the new building on the ground indicated in the same list (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Since the instant housing and the instant existing building were a building with a wall, there was a risk of rupture and rupture to the living room and room room in the instant building, and thereafter there was a gap in the instant housing due to the phenomenon such as subsidence and rupture on the ceiling and wall part of the living room and room, and there was a change in the toilet mold and the door door door are inconsistent.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2-1, and Evidence No. 2-2, Results of appraiser C’s appraisal, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The facts acknowledged before the basis of liability and the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant continued to perform the construction of the instant building that was the instant building and the instant building that was the instant building, and the construction of the instant building on the fifth fifth floor above the ground; the Plaintiff’s site and the instant building owned by the Defendant are directly connected to the instant building; and the instant building appears to have been newly constructed at a very close distance to approximately one meter from the instant house to the point of view that the horizontal distance from the instant building would have been within a distance of approximately one meter; the Defendant appears to have continuously maintained vibration and impact on the instant building adjacent to the instant building during the process of removing the instant existing building and constructing the new building.