1. Defendant KC Construction Co., Ltd.: KRW 4,460,000 for the Plaintiff and its related amount from February 8, 2014 to February 5, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant apartment house B (hereinafter “instant housing”) at Kimhae-si, newly constructed on or around September 17, 201, and the Defendant KC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a contractor who was awarded a contract for construction works for the expansion of the national expressway No. 551 line air conditioners to the Defendant Korea Highway Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”).

B. The Defendant Company carried out a tunnel blasting work (hereinafter “instant blasting work”) as part of the instant expansion work in the vicinity of the instant house from April 201 to June 2011. On January 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant blasting work took place, and requested the Defendant Company to repair heat in the instant house. Around March 2012, the Defendant Company performed repair work for the crack of the instant house.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, part of Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 16, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant KC Construction

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the overall purport of pleadings as a result of appraiser C’s appraisal, as evidence and evidence of Gap’s 13, 17 evidence, Gap’s 14, and 15 evidence, Gap’s 14, and 15 evidence, witness C’s testimony, this court’s on-site inspection result, and appraiser’s appraisal result. In other words, after the blasting work of this case, D’s house owned by approximately 340 meters and the separation distance is about 350 meters, and E’s house owned by approximately 400 meters and the separation distance is about 400 meters, and the defect of the above provision regarding the occurrence of heating of the above house between the plaintiff, D, and E against the defendant company was conducted by the Defendant company, and employees in charge of civil petitions of the defendant company added to E the same heating of house, etc. related to the blasting work of this case.