1. The Defendant: 20,803,525 won to Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from September 10, 2009 to February 19, 2013; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the second-class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “A”) with the second-class 2nd floor of the general steel structure structure structure and the second-class neighborhood living facilities with the second-class 327 square meters above the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “A”), and the Plaintiff B was the owner of the third-class general steel structure and the third-class neighborhood living facilities with the third-class concrete 45 square meters above the D major 45 square meters (hereinafter “B building”), and the Plaintiffs operated the said buildings as the restaurant of “E” at the time of 208 and 2009.

B. Around July 2008, the Defendant received a contract from the Gangseo-gu Office of Busan to extend construction work located in a place less than 40 to 100 square meters away from the above building (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and performed the said construction work until July 2009.

C. As a result of the instant construction, the instant construction caused subsidence, cracks, water leakages, etc. in the building A, and the restoration cost of the building A is KRW 29,719.32.

On the other hand, A building is located above the half of the bricks, and is vulnerable to rupture, water leakage, etc. with a complex structure such as steel frame, wood, brick, etc.

B On April 13, 2012, there were some leakages and ruptures at the time of the on-site inspection by this Court.

A A Building commenced on October 21, 2005 and approved for use on December 30, 2005, and B was commenced on December 8, 2004 and approved for use on January 2, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2's evidence 1 to 4, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraisal of the causes of defects and restoration expenses to the original state against the appraiser G by this court, the fact inquiry results by the head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, there is a proximate causal relation between the instant construction project and the damage to a building A.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff A for the damage caused by the construction work of this case.

However, considering that the ground condition and structure form of the building A in addition to the construction of this case and some damage to the building A are caused and increased, it is reasonable to limit the defendant's responsibility to 70%.