logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.03 2014나60728
손해배상
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 25,422,161 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from March 14, 2013 to July 3, 2015 against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the second floor house in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (road name address: the same Gu H and the next year “instant building”).

B. On April 16, 2012, the Defendant started the construction of the instant education center building and completed the said construction work on September 15, 2013, as a construction contractor awarded a contract for the new construction of C, D, E’s education hall building (2,664.36 square meters in total floor area, 664.36 square meters, 6 stories above ground, 1).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the appraiser G’s appraisal result (including the result of supplementary appraisal; hereinafter the same), the construction of this case expanded the existing cracks or water leakages of the building of this case due to the construction of this case, and new defects, such as the number of floors underground floors, have occurred. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the construction of this case, barring any special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he fulfilled his duty of care in the execution as a constructor, such as the construction of this case, by making full-time with the Safety Corporation to prevent damage to neighboring housing through prior safety diagnosis and measurement. However, the defendant's assertion is not sufficient to recognize that there was no more safe method that the defendant could have been able to take in the current construction and civil engineering technology, and there is no other evidence to support it. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraisal by G of expenses for repairing defects, appraiser, and appraiser, the instant building occurred.

arrow