logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.04.25 2018가단20117
건물등철거
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are married with each other, and the Plaintiff A owns a building of 173 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

At present with the first and third floors above ground, the building of this case is operated by the lessee of the first floor with the mutual cafeteria "D", and the second floor is occupied by other lessees, and the plaintiffs are residing in the third floor.

The building of this case was approved on August 6, 1987, and on February 5, 1988.

B. Before the construction of the instant building, the Defendant laid sewage pipes (hereinafter “instant sewage pipes”) under the ground of the instant site (800 meters in diameter; hereinafter “the instant sewage pipes”), and the instant sewage pipes were connected with sewage pipes, which connects to the instant site and connects to the 7th line road adjacent to the instant site.

C. The Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant to remove the instant sewage pipes, and the Defendant cut off one point of the sewage pipes laid underground on the above roads around 2002, and connects them with the new sewage pipes, but the new sewage pipes laid underground to circumvent the instant site by blocking the said roads, and the existing sewage pipes, including the instant sewage pipes, were left without removal.

In around 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the vibration of the excavation work implemented on the building side of the above road occurred through the instant sewage pipe, and requested the Defendant to take measures, and the Defendant requested the E Co., Ltd. to conduct a safety inspection. On March 2015, the Plaintiffs drafted an emergency inspection report containing the following details.

On the other hand, around September 2015, the Defendant paid 5 million won to the Plaintiffs at the repair cost for the cracks, etc. of the instant building.

In most cases, the instant building maintains its construction status, and there was no apparent signs that might be peculiar.

. an examined defect; and

arrow