A. The Defendant is the owner of No. 302 of the 3th floor among multi-household houses of the 4th floor of Jincheon-gun B, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, the first reinforced concrete structure.

B. As a security for loans to C, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 377,00,000 on the first floor among the above multi-household housing units Nos. 101, 102, 201, and 202, and concluded a mortgage agreement with the Jincheon District Court No. 23413 on December 26, 2012.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction against the above multi-household 101, 102, 201, and 202, and received a decision on commencing auction to Cheongju District Court D on January 26, 2015, and currently under progress the auction procedure.

The spring, wall, and floor mashion of the above multi-household housing Nos. 102 and 202 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant was damaged as water was leaked from the floor of the housing No. 302, which was owned by the Defendant, and the water was damaged, and the water leakage exceeded the water level of the 302, the water level owned by the Defendant.

(e) the reconstruction cost after the removal of a ceiling, wall surface, and floor 102, 202 due to water leakages is KRW 6,446,06.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 and 2, each 1 to 3, the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser E by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, it is reasonable to view that the value of the real estate in this case, the security interest of which is the real estate in this case, was reduced to the amount of KRW 6,446,06, which is the amount equivalent to the repair cost, due to the leakage from the housing owned by the defendant, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff suffered losses as much as the secured

(The plaintiff filed a claim in this case on the premise that the amount of the secured claim is not equal to the repair cost, and the defendant does not dispute this part). Meanwhile, according to the overall purport of each film and pleading in the evidence Nos. 5 through 10, the damage incurred by the leakage of the real estate in this case is owned by the defendant.