beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,925,076 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from October 25, 2016 to February 7, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From March 20, 2016 to October 2016, the Defendant carried out a new construction work for a new house (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on the ground of 1031 in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.
B. Around April 2016, the instant parking lot was located on the floor located 228-69, 155-gil-ro, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the neighboring Plaintiff owned at the construction site of this case (hereinafter “instant parking lot”). The parking lot boundary fences were modified or destroyed.
C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request for repair, the Defendant partially carried out the repair work for the frat portion of the instant parking lot, and suspended the repair work due to the Plaintiff’s dispute over the scope of the repair work.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including, if any, various numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the appraiser A’s appraisal result, the Defendant’s execution of the instant construction project, which led to ruptures and shocks on the floor of the instant parking lot due to vibration and shocks that occurred in the course of the sprinking process to support the fleet among the construction works of the instant building, and the fact that the alteration and destruction of parking lot boundary fences occurred due to the instability in the ground during the construction of the instant construction project. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom as a tort.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the heat generated in the instant parking lot is not due to shock and vibration generated from the instant construction project, but because the thickness of asphalts which was removed in the parking lot is less than 30 cm, and that the boundary stone was not properly fixed on the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the lower half of the building, and thus, there are several numbers of evidence Nos. 4 through 8.