1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Seo-gu Seoul District Building (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is the owner who purchased the D-ground Building abutting on the instant building (hereinafter “Defendant building”) on February 28, 2018 and removed the said building and constructed the said building (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. Since March 2018, the instant construction commenced, there were defects, such as rupture and rupture, etc., at the place of the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 13, the result of the commission of appraisal to E by the court of first instance, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, namely, the instant building and the Defendant’s building were constructed with the fenced by the same structure and plane as the same building with each other across the boundary; the instant building is a red tide building vulnerable to shock and vibration; the instant building was concentrated on the left side of the instant building abutting on the Defendant’s building; the rupture has increased to the construction site of this case; and the existing defect of this case appears to be distinguishable from the existing defect of the instant building (such as the main floor of the building, the math floor, the inner wall stalle, etc.) and the impact of the instant construction. In full view of the above circumstances, the considerable part of the defect caused by the instant building is deemed to have arisen from the instant construction, and the cost of repairing the defect of this case arising from the instant construction is equivalent to KRW 8,512,200.

B. Meanwhile, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the construction permission mark of this case related to the construction work of this case is written as "the defendant" in the owner and the constructor column.

However, the following circumstances, which can be known by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 14 and by the overall purport of the pleadings, a standard contract for private construction works between the defendant and FF corporation, have been made.