beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim brought at the trial.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is operating a company while residing in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building. During the process of constructing a new building in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s building on March 10, 2014, the Defendant, who built a concrete removal work on the Plaintiff’s parking zone (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), has diminished the residual concrete in D Eccuasium (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by the Plaintiff, which was parked in the Plaintiff’s parking zone, and accordingly, the Plaintiff constructed a glass painting with the Plaintiff’s cost of KRW 1,080,000 on March 13, 2014.
After all, the Defendant again fell into the instant vehicle on April 8, 2014 in the course of performing concrete dismantling operations. In order to remove this, the Defendant’s employee, dumping water through rubber straw, thereby breaking the instant vehicle with fingers and dust hump, thereby damaging the glass string of the instant vehicle and cutting off, and humping off the hump on April 9, 2014. However, the Plaintiff accepted the instant vehicle by bringing an estimate of KRW 4,180,220 as a result of requesting for an estimate to the Hyundai Automobile Service Center as it did not completely remove concrete traces and defects. As such, the Plaintiff was presumed to have been in need of re-design after leaving the part in which the costs of KRW 4,180,220 were added.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the above repair cost of KRW 5,760,220 (i.e., the repair cost of KRW 1,580,000 for the future payment of the repair cost of KRW 4,180,220) and damages for delay.
B. However, it is not sufficient to find that the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including each number) are sufficient to recognize the fact that the vehicle of this case sustained damages as alleged by the plaintiff due to construction works such as the defendant's concrete studing work, etc., and there is no other evidence to recognize this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any need to further
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The defendant's assertion.