손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as stated in the following "the part used for repair", and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) The grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial through appeal are not significantly different from those alleged in the first instance court. Thus, even if the evidence submitted by the Defendant is examined, it does not differ from the facts finding and judgment of the first instance court. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case should be accepted within the scope recognized by the first instance court, and the remainder of the claim should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit
[Supplementary Use]
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Article 301 of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu D apartment No. 301 of the Act on the Ownership of Defendant and Article 201 of the Act on the Ownership of Plaintiffs (the share of 1/2).
B. A cresh in the vicinity of the balcony pipes No. 301 caused continuous occurrence of water leakages around the balcony pipes No. 201, and damage the ceiling, walls, etc. of the lower floor, 201, the water from the 301 main and lower floor pipe pipes of the 301 main and lower floor.
C. Around April 2014, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 400,000,00 to fluco in balconys due to the 201 indoor balconys. Around May 2015, 2015, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 600,000 at the cost of replacement in remote areas because the brush was damaged by a leakage of remote areas.
The Defendant did not take any measures to remove the cause of water leakage even after the Plaintiffs’ demand for remuneration. Even after performing the aforementioned repair work, the Plaintiffs continued to suffer water leakage and damaged the ceiling, walls, and the surrounding areas of the kitchen and the inside bank, etc. of 201, and the construction cost of KRW 2,280,268 is required to repair the damaged portion.
[Reasons for Recognition]