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

A. On June 30, 2004, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer for each 1/2 shares of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiffs filed a civil petition with the Defendant that water leakage phenomenon occurred in the underground floor part of the instant building, which is the waterworks facilities managed by the Defendant laid underground in front of the instant building, and the employees belonging to the Defendant’s waterworks business office visited the site on November 5, 2014 and confirmed the detailed water leakage phenomenon generated in the waterworks pipelines laid underground in front of the instant building, and then managing the water supply facilities outside the boundary of the site of the water supply facilities installed by the mayor under the main sentence of Article 22(3) of the Ordinance on Water Supply of the Si-si Water, which is managed by the Defendant, among the water supply pipes, shall be the responsibility of the Mayor for the management of water supply facilities within the boundary of the site.”

Plast pipes (hereinafter “Defendant’s side management pipelines”) were replaced and the installation of a water valve was done, and the Plaintiffs also replaced the steel pipe (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s side management pipe”) managed by the Plaintiffs among the aforementioned water supply pipe.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant construction,” in total of the above field surveys and operations). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 7 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. From 2005 to 2005 the plaintiffs' assertion, pipes for the defendant's side management (the left side is set below and the ground plan and right side are short.

) From red lines, “Plast piping” was destroyed due to the destruction of not less than 7/10 of the cross-sections, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs suffered damages that could not lease the underground floor of the instant building due to water leakage from the underground floor of the instant building.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiffs.