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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one parcel above ground E apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and Defendant B and C reside in 1205, the immediate upper floor of the instant apartment, 1006, and Defendant Samong Building Co., Ltd is the owner of the instant apartment 1205.

New Construction Co., Ltd. is the operator of the apartment of this case, and on April 2, 2012, it was merged with the Daegu D&S Co., Ltd., and the defendant Taesung L&S, Inc., took over the lawsuit for new construction.

B. On September 21, 2010, the apartment building 1006 of this case had a wide range of leakages due to the dunes of dunes, the second floor, the wall, corridor, the bridge, and the bals, etc. of this case suffered considerable water leakages.

[Reasons for Recognition] A.1-12 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff did not properly manage the drainage hole of the rooftop capacity attached to the instant apartment building 1205, and caused considerable water leakage to the Plaintiff’s apartment buildings residing under the control of the Plaintiff. ① Defendant B and C are the possessor of the instant apartment building 1205, and ② Defendant Samong Building Co., Ltd. is the owner of the instant apartment building 1205 and was not found to have been negligent by Defendant 1 and 2, as the owner of the instant apartment building, and ③ Defendant 3 is liable without fault.

4. The company did not have the floor height of the rooftop of the apartment of this case more than the interior, and construction defects that did not prepare a waterproof height that could sufficiently cope with concentrated heavy rain by installing a window, and the roof roof of the apartment of this case was removed by the council of occupants' representatives after the studs of typhoons, which was entrusted by the council of occupants' representatives to take measures for water leakage damage from the apartment of this case. Since the removal of the roof finishing materials, the company did not fully take measures to prevent water leakage damage from being taken on September 21, 2010, and the defendants suffered considerable water leakage damage.