beta
Text
1. Of Plaintiff B’s lawsuit and Plaintiff H’s lawsuit, the part exceeding KRW 3,491,600 and its delay damages claim.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 207, the Defendant commenced construction of a new construction of the two underground floors and nine Q apartment units (hereinafter “instant apartment units”) of the scale of 28th and that of the 854 households (hereinafter “instant construction”) in the Daegu-gu Pdong P department, Daegu-gu P department of 2007 (hereinafter “instant apartment units”), and suspended the instant construction. From May 201, the instant construction was resumed, and completed the instant construction on October 13, 201, and completed the instant construction on August 2013.
B. The Plaintiffs owned or owned a building in the vicinity of the instant apartment (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) and its site as indicated in the attached amount sheet.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2-48, 55 (including those with provisional numbers, and hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. 1) In light of the following circumstances, it is doubtful that the defendant's assertion of the defects of the plaintiffs' right of attorney was duly entrusted by the plaintiffs' attorney to the plaintiffs' right of attorney. 2) The plaintiffs' attorney's attorney's right of attorney as to the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff Eul (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") was duly delegated by the plaintiffs' attorney, and the whole purport of the pleading is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, namely, ① his seal is affixed on the right side of the plaintiffs' name among the indication items of the delegating letter submitted by the plaintiffs' attorney, and no other evidence was submitted, and ② the plaintiffs' attorney submitted a certified copy of the resident registration card, resident registration certificate, and driver's license copy issued in 2016 after the lawsuit of this case through the attorney. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs' attorney has been duly delegated or ratified the right of attorney as to the lawsuit of this case
However, Gap evidence 1-7, Gap evidence 5-4, Eul.