2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. Multi-household housing in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) is a newly built building around 1992, and the Plaintiff is the owner referred to in subparagraph D among the instant building, and the Defendant is the owner referred to in subparagraph E among the instant building.

B. Around May 2012, the Defendant: (a) requested F to remove water tanks and pipes at his own expense when water tanks and pipes installed on the rooftop of the instant building were worn out; and (b) executed construction directly linking water pipes of the instant building to water supply pipes.

C. The Plaintiff voluntarily removed and stolen water tanks, and filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant, but the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition that the Defendant was guilty.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant arbitrarily removed and stolen ten water tanks installed on the rooftop, the Plaintiff should compensate for KRW 320,000,000, which are equivalent to the value of one water tank connected to a sectioned building owned by the Plaintiff.

B. As recognized earlier, water tanks installed in the instant building were installed around 1992 when the said building was newly constructed, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant had property value as being impossible to use the water tank any longer due to damage. Rather, the Defendant intended to remove the water tank for the Plaintiff at his own expense and directly connect the water pipe to the water supply pipe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s act constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant building.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case in conclusion must be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same.