손해배상등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
Claim:
1. The plaintiff is the owner of the 12-dong 12-dong Dolle in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant is the owner of the 12-dong 12-dong 3th floor
It is a building newly built around the 1986.
From February 2, 2013, the water began to fall from the middle-class, the first-class, the upper-class, the upper-rise, and the lower-level.
The plaintiff listens to the statement that water flows out on the second floor from E, a water detection business entity, and was informed on March 4, 2013 by telephone to the defendant.
After that, the plaintiff asked the second floor tenant that he was able to fill water in boilers more than once a day from the boiler, and asked the plaintiff to answer that he was the cause of the failure of the second floor distribution district.
On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 550,000 for the repair cost, replaced the second floor distribution district, and resolved by phone call to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff demanded the payment of KRW 550,000 for the repair cost.
Since then, water has been reduced in April 21, 2013.
This led to the failure of the first floor, and the ice Luxembourg was serious, and it was born again.
On April 23, 2013, F, a water leakage detection company, replaced NabV of the second boiler, and the leakage has not occurred for a considerable period of time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above findings of the determination, since there is no leakage of one floor for a considerable period of time after maintaining the boiler of April 23, 2013, it is presumed that the leakage of the 12nd unit and the 12nd unit were generated in the section for exclusive use of the second floor from February 2013 to April 23, 2013.
In addition, although the second floor tenant is required to pay attention to prevent leakage in the first floor, it is not caused by the failure to do so, but it seems that the second floor section of exclusive ownership has been deteriorated.
Therefore, the defendant, who is the second floor owner, is obliged to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by such water leakage.
On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 550,000 to replace the distribution district.