1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a single-story C ground-based house in Daegu-gu, and the Defendant is the owner of a second-story D ground-based house adjacent to the Plaintiff’s house.

B. From May 2014, the Defendant removed the Defendant’s house and carried out a new construction project on its job.

【Ground for recognition】 A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3 in the evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff suffered from vibration generated in the process of removing the house owned by the defendant and carrying out the new construction of the house on the job, and thus, the plaintiff was damaged by the columns that tanked the roof of the house owned by the plaintiff and the roof of the building.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tort.

B. In determining a tort, the burden of proving the existence of the harmful act by intention or negligence and the causal relationship between the act and the occurrence of the loss lies on the person who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92272, Mar. 25, 2010). Whether the Defendant removed the Defendant’s house and carried out the new construction work on the land is not sufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of the images of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 10, 12, and the evidence No. 7-1, 2, and 11, since the Defendant removed the Defendant’s house and took part in the new construction work on the land, the Plaintiff’s column owned and the roof of the house owned by the Plaintiff was not proven.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and correct.