1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a multi-household house with the fifth fifth floor above the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant house”), and the Defendant started construction work on July 11, 2012 and completed construction work around January 201, 2014 as a construction company that was awarded a contract for construction of a Dtel building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. During the construction process of the instant building, there were ruptures on the wall of the parking lot outer wall of the instant building, and on the floor floor room of the building (red red seat), the wall maty day of the household, the front day within the household, and the ston and coke above the outer retaining wall of the building, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant defect”), . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including partial numbers), the result of the appraisal by the appraiser E of the first instance court and the result of the appraisal and supplementation, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as a whole prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s prior safety inspection report, measurement management results, and the new construction year of the instant house, were presumed to have been expanded and continued due to the instant construction due to the consideration of the Defendant’s prior safety inspection report, measurement management results, and the new construction year of the instant house; and (ii) there was no evidence to deem that there was a situation where the same level was already occurred prior to the instant construction (the prior safety inspection report submitted by the Defendant does not include the instant house); and (iii) the Defendant asserted that the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care as a construction business operator, such as the use of non-vibration crushers, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant used a public law adequate for the old age and degree of the instant house; and (iv) the Defendant, as a construction business operator, is liable for damages of KRW 30 million to the owner of the adjacent building damaged by the instant construction.