1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building site and building on the second floor above the ground and the second floor above the ground of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter each Plaintiff’s building site and building), and the Defendant is the owner of the building of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gi 353.4 square meters and the five-story above the ground (hereinafter each Defendant’s building site and building).

B. Defendant B ordered Defendant C to build the Defendant’s building, and Defendant C had built the Defendant’s building from August 3, 2010 to February 29, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants’ joint tort damages 1) The Defendant’s tort damages amounting to KRW 4.50,00,000, which is equivalent to the above upper limit value, due to the vibration generated during the Defendant’s construction of the Defendant’s building, caused the damage of the Plaintiff’s physical and mental pain by causing the noise, pollution, dust, etc. from August 3, 2010, which is the date of the commencement of construction, to February 29, 2012, which is the date of completion of construction.

3) After completion of the construction project, Defendant C promised the Plaintiff to restore to its original state, and promised the Plaintiff to take materials for the Defendant’s construction of the building, attached the Plaintiff’s fence located on the access road, and did not restore to its original state after the completion of the construction project. Accordingly, the Plaintiff incurred damages from the Plaintiff’s expenditure of KRW 1.5 million as the construction cost for the fence, KRW 7 million as the construction cost for the rooftop waterproof, KRW 4.2 million as the total roof waterproof construction cost, and KRW 11,284,60 as the construction cost for the new construction work for the Defendant C walking. 4) On October 201, 201, the Plaintiff, with the permission of Defendant C, carried out the construction cost of KRW 4.522 million as the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land.

Nevertheless, Defendant C did not boundary the fenced by the Plaintiff’s basic construction work, and instead performed the above-mentioned construction work on the basis of the fenced part.