A. The Plaintiff is the owner of underground floor E or F of a building located in D in the leisure city, and the Defendant is the owner of the third floor G of the same building.

B. On January 26, 2016, water leakage occurred in a water pipe which connects teas and toilets within the third floor G of the above building (hereinafter “instant accident”). The water leakage occurred due to the Plaintiff’s inflows into the underground floor in which the clothing manufacturing business was conducted by the Plaintiff, which led to inundation-related damage.

C. Meanwhile, the place where water leakage occurred was not the basic water source installed within the building, but the Defendant was a water pipe arbitrarily installed on the ceiling and the wall for the use of tap water.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 19, 20, Eul evidence No. 5 and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Defendant asserts to the effect that Nonparty H occupied and used the commercial building owned by the Plaintiff as a marina, and that the instant accident was caused by the so-called wave, and that it denied the liability for damages.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case occurred due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the water pipe, which is a structure installed by the defendant. According to the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 19, 20, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including the provisional number), the point where the water leakage occurred was the water pipe to link the kitchen with the kitchen of the room irrelevant to the Mat, and the ground for water leakage occurred due to the fall in the connected section which connects several water pipes, and it is not the same wave in light of the location where the water pipe was installed at the time of the accident in this case. Considering this, it is difficult to view that H occupied the water pipe at the time of the accident in this case, and even if H was admitted, it cannot be deemed that H neglected the duty of care necessary to prevent damage. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have neglected the duty of care.