1. The part against Defendant D among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim as to the revocation portion is dismissed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third to fourteen parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be conducted as follows.

“C. G. H subcontracted the removal of the existing building during the instant construction work to Defendant D, who operates the civil sn beam beam sn beam construction business, and accordingly, Defendant D, from February 12, 2014 to February 12, 2014, ordered the removal of the existing building, the demolition of underground concrete floor, and the excavation of underground sand.” Of the judgment of the first instance court of the first instance, “Evidence No. 8, the witness H’s testimony, and the appraisal result of appraiser H’s appraiser H’s appraisal.”

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the constructor who performed the removal of the instant building, the dismantling of the concrete floor of underground floors, and the above construction work on the site adjoining to the instant building. Although there was a duty of care to take appropriate measures so as not to cause damage, such as subsidence of the ground, cracks, etc. in the instant building, Defendant D generated noise and vibration exceeding the standard value by performing construction work without installing a retaining wall and a protective wall for preventing the delivery of vibration, in violation of this duty of care, and due to vibration and external power, caused or expanded defects, such as subsidence of the ground, cracks, bricks, fences, and stuffs, etc., in the instant building. Thus, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, who is the owner of the instant building, for damages incurred by the instant construction.

B. The facts acknowledged earlier and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 7 (including paper numbers), and the result of the fact inquiry conducted by the first instance court on Nov. 7, 2016 to Gwanak-gu Office of the first instance.