1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial of the party, is as follows:

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the deletion of “the result of appraiser F’s appraisal” on the grounds of the claim and recognition, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) In full view of the overall purport of recognition and alteration as seen earlier, the joint tort under the Civil Act is established when multiple acts objectively related to each other cause damage to others, and neither joint intent nor joint perception among actors is required (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44969, Apr. 11, 2013, etc.). In full view of the overall purport of the recognition and alteration theory as seen earlier, B prepared design drawings to prevent any violation of various relevant laws and regulations upon receiving a request from the Plaintiff for building design from the Plaintiff. In addition, in conducting on-site investigation and confirmation for building permission by the administrative agency, even if the design was performed by proxy after checking the violation of the relevant laws and regulations, it is negligent in preparing a design drawings, building permission investigation and inspection report applying this distance erroneously under the relevant laws and regulations, and by making an application for building permission to the head of the sectional government.

In addition, the head of the Gu, a subordinate administrative agency of the defendant, is negligent in the construction permit without finding any fact that the contents of the design drawings, construction permit investigation, and inspection report submitted by B, which were submitted by B on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation on behalf of the defendant pursuant to the construction ordinance, are erroneously applied to B by neglecting the duty to take corrective measures or return the documents of application for construction permit.

The defendant's negligence and B's negligence are objectively related.