1. Defendant B, C, and D jointly share KRW 17,192,155 with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from January 18, 2020 to February 18, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 28, 2008, the Plaintiff owned the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing with Two-storys on the F Ground and the Pyeongtaek-si, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul (the building approved for use on May 26, 198; hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 10, 2017, Defendant B and C entered into a service contract for removal of buildings with Defendant D, who is engaged in the removal business with the trade name of G, setting the removal period from August 13, 2017 to August 23, 2017, and the removal cost of the building at KRW 29,000,000, which is to be incurred for the removal of the building adjacent to the instant building and the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H ground building (hereinafter “existing building”).

C. Around August 2017, Defendant B and C concluded a construction contract with Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the commencement of construction works within five days after the completion of removal and completion of construction works within five days after the commencement of construction works, setting the construction cost of KRW 5,80,000,000, and entered into a contract on May 30, 2018 with the construction period from November 24, 2017 to July 15, 2018.

From October 2017, the removal works for the existing building (hereinafter “instant removal works”) began and cut off in the process of removal works, as the balcony part of the third floor of the existing building adjacent to the instant building is attached to the instant building.

E. On November 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition, such as building rupture due to the removal of the instant building, with the Geumcheon-gu Office, and after confirmation by the counseling architect, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition, such as building rupture, etc., of the removal of the instant building. Since the rupture of the outer wall of the instant building occurred, the rupture of the wall is larger, the wall is supposed, and the inner rupture occurs, the Plaintiff newly installed after the removal of the existing wall and prepared a reinforcement plan to prevent additional cracks and water from occurring.

F. According to the content of the survey on the current status of the instant building at the request of the Defendant Company on December 2017, 2017, the balcony structure of the second floor above the ground of the existing building.