1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 17,436,650 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 15,150,850 to Plaintiff B, and each of them on October 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff A is the owner of Osan-si E and F ground-based container 10 floor accommodation buildings (hereinafter "the plaintiff A") and the plaintiff B is the owner of the building with 10 floor accommodation facilities (hereinafter "the plaintiff B") of the 10th floor roof of the Tri-gu Tri-gu Tri-gu joints around H ground and the 10th floor roof of the Tri-gu Tri-gu Tri-gu Tri-gu Tri-gu Correspo, and the defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter "the defendant company") is the contractor for the new construction of the I-ground building (hereinafter "the defendant company of this case"). The defendant C is the owner of the defendant building of this case as the representative director of the defendant company of this case.

B. The plaintiffs' building is adjoining to Dongwest, and the defendant building of this case is adjoining to the plaintiffs' building and South Korea.

(c)

In January 2019, while the defendant company had built concrete building in the defendant company in this case, the amount of concrete different theories was accumulated into each roof, wall, etc. of the plaintiffs' buildings.

immediately after that, the above concrete became light and caused damages such as removal of the plaintiffs' building increased (hereinafter "accident of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, as a result of the commission of appraisal to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and J architect's office (including numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the commission of appraisal to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and J architect's office's office's office.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant Company is a contractor of the instant construction of the Defendant Building. Defendant C is jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising from the instant accident as the representative director of the Defendant Company’s owner’s interest as the owner of the said construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da116307, Apr. 11, 2013). B. The Defendants requested to allow access to the Plaintiffs’ building for cleaning work to prevent the deterioration of concrete immediately after the instant accident. However, the Plaintiffs’ liability was expanded due to the expansion of wind damage caused by the Plaintiffs’ refusal.