채무부존재확인
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is due to the Plaintiff’s water leakage, etc. in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 201 Dong 902.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 1002, and the defendant is the owner of the same apartment 902, who is the owner of the same apartment.
B. On March 22, 2015, the Defendant discovered that water falls from the Defendant apartment site and visited the Plaintiff’s apartment site, and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff’s heating pipes were based on the heating pipes of the apartment site.
C. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff replaced a heating pipeline valve.
3. 26. 26. Execution of repair works for heating pipes, but the number of persons continued to occur.
Since then, there have been some phenomena, such as the management of part on the water unit of the apartment house in the defendant apartment house, grat, and rupture.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser D by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, it is reasonable to view that water leakage has occurred in the heating pipelines for the plaintiff's apartment, and that it is a defect in the preservation of the part for exclusive use of the plaintiff's apartment.
Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the cost of repairing defects and the damages for delay to the defendant.
In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the alteration, such as rheat, in the defendant apartment house, is consistent with the alteration of the apartment house, but the above alteration is not entirely caused by water leakages from the plaintiff apartment house, so that the plaintiff bears the whole cost of defect repair.
In full view of the purport of this court’s appraisal commission with respect to appraiser D, it is difficult to view the cause of the alteration of the Defendant apartment site as the water leakage of the heating pipe around the Plaintiff apartment site. However, the Defendant’s assertion is that the alteration of the heating pipe around the water leakage was modified, and that 5,654,867 won was required at the cost of reconstruction after the removal of the altered part due to water leakage.