Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B and Defendant C jointly share to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 9,816,158 and their amount on March 28, 2017.

On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff at issue requested Defendant D to provide design services for the newly constructed building on the land of Yansan-gu E in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Evidence 3). On July 12, 2015, the Plaintiff contracted the construction of the above land to Defendant B (Evidence 4), and on July 17, 2015, requested Defendant C to supervise the said newly constructed construction.

(A) A. The building newly constructed under the above construction contract, etc. was built in a state where part of the adjoining land was invaded (area 2.7 square meters).

(W) On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Land Information Corporation to perform a boundary restoration survey on the instant land before performing the construction of the instant building for Defendant B and C’s claim against the principal claim. The Korea Land Information Corporation, on May 7, 2015, indicated the boundary point of the instant land at the site of boundary, etc. while conducting a boundary restoration survey on May 7, 2015.

(2) On August 24, 2017, Defendant B violated the duty to construct the new building of this case in accordance with the design documents, and Defendant C violated the duty to supervise whether the new building of this case is constructed in accordance with the design documents.

Therefore, the above Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

However, since the construction cost necessary for the removal of the part over the boundary of the instant case and reconstruction is KRW 81,832,348 (including value-added tax), the said Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 81,832,348 and the damages for delay.

In this regard, Defendant B asserted that the father of the Plaintiff moved the boundary mark, and that the supervision ordered the construction of the building on the basis of the relocated point, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant D had a duty to manage and supervise Defendant D so that the new building of this case can be constructed properly and approved for use. As such, Defendant D neglected to do so.