The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation is dismissed.

A. On January 28, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant shopping mall E, which the Plaintiff is running business, suffered from flood damage due to the water supply pipe damage caused by the Defendant’s failure to manage the instant shopping mall D, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) owned by the Defendant.

Although the defendant should open the same water supply center after the completion of the repair, only a simple measure has been taken between the plaintiff and the plaintiff without the plaintiff to open the water supply center of the commercial building of this case, and thereafter did not take any measures to prevent the expansion of damages caused by the flood damage of the commercial building of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 720,00,000, total expenses incurred in relation to the construction cost in the estimates for construction, which is the loss incurred by the Plaintiff due to flood damage in the instant shopping mall E, and KRW 1,50,000, total operating loss for five days as of January 2018, including the amount of loss incurred by the business during five days as of January 2018, and the amount of electric charges and the amount of loss equivalent to the price of the flooded object, etc.

B. Determination 1) In a tort, the burden of proving the existence of harmful act by intention or negligence and the causal relationship between the act and the occurrence of the loss lies on the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92272, Mar. 25, 2010). First, we examine whether the defendant's failure to manage the shopping mall D in this case caused the same wave accident on January 28, 2018. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff is the owner of the shopping mall in this case. The water supply manager of the second floor in the new wall in this case in January 28, 2018 can be recognized, and the water leakage occurred in the plaintiff's commercial building (E). It is insufficient to find that the same accident was caused by the defendant's negligence or management negligence in the defendant's management, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings is as follows.