1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, the amount of KRW 9,310,586 and the corresponding amount of KRW 13,965,879; (b) against Plaintiff B and C; and (c) on January 26, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged upon Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including, if any, a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of this court’s commission of appraisal to appraiser E (including the result of the appraisal supplementation; hereinafter the “the result of the appraisal of this case”).

1) The Defendant is a contractor who newly constructed “G apartment house” in the near-gu, Northern-si, Northern-si, 2016, and the Plaintiffs are the said Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”).

) A building adjacent to the site (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) as indicated in the attached Form;

(2) As the ground was modified in the course of the base destruction of the instant building during the instant construction work (Plaintiff A3/7 shares, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C 2/7 shares), there were many defects, such as rupture, rupture, erosion, water leakage, etc., in the instant construction work site due to vibration and shock at the construction site.

B. The defendant asserts that the defects of the building of this case are irrelevant to the construction of this case, and that the appraisal result of this case on the causes of defects of the building of this case lacks objectivity and objectivity.

However, the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless there exist significant errors such as the appraisal method against the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da70420, 70437, Feb. 22, 2007; 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012). In light of the background, procedure, reasoning, etc. revealed by the aforementioned evidence, the appraiser’s appraisal result may not be deemed to have made significant errors in the appraisal result of the instant case in light of the general theory on earthquake damage in the area of the port of 2017 (Evidence 3 through 5, 15) or the safety diagnosis or written opinion (Evidence 1, 10, 14) prepared at the Defendant’s request at the Defendant’s side, and all of the evidence or circumstances cited by the Defendant.