1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a person operating a gas station located in Namwon-si, Namwon-si (hereinafter “instant gas station”). The Defendant is a person operating the Drown located in C adjacent to the said gas station (hereinafter “instant leisure”).

From May 6, 2015, the Defendant carried out the remodeling project of the instantns (hereinafter “instant construction”) from around May 6, 2015. During that process, vehicles laden with heavy construction materials passed through the site of the instant gas station. As a result, there was rupture on the wall and underground stairs of the building of the gas station in this case, as well as on the wall and underground stairs of the instant gas station, the ground of the oil storage and the upper floor subsidences, and the cost of repairing construction reaches KRW 65,500,000.

Meanwhile, the Defendant used approximately KRW 400,000 without the Plaintiff’s consent during the construction process of the instant case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 65,900,000 (=65,500,000 electricity usage fee of KRW 400,00) as damages for damages and delay damages.

2. Examining the determination on the claim for repair and construction cost, in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in each description in the evidence Nos. 2-1 through 10, and No. 2-1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff owned the wall of the instant gas station building, the underground oil storage, and the ground surface of the instant oil station owned by the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant performed the remodeling construction work of the instant brigade from June 2015 to August 2015.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the defect occurred in the gas station building of this case was caused by the Defendant’s construction work of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this is without merit.

3. Examining the reasoning of the judgment on the claim for electricity use fee No. 10 in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the electricity charges of “E rest area” operated by the Plaintiff on January 1, 2015.