A. Multi-household housing in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “multi-household housing in this case”) was constructed around June 1986. The Plaintiff is the owner and occupant of the first floor of the instant multi-household housing (hereinafter “Plaintiff housing”). The Defendant is the owner and occupant of the second floor of multi-household housing in this case (hereinafter “Defendant housing”).

B. As water leakage (hereinafter “water leakage in this case”) occurred in the main stream of the Plaintiff’s housing site, damage was inflicted on the ceiling.

The cause of the damage of water leakage in this case is due to the defects of toilets waterproof layers and sewage pipes located in toilets and the main room of the Defendant’s housing.

The costs of KRW 6,552,008 are required for the Plaintiff to repair the water leakage damage of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1, Gap evidence No. 5-5 and 6-6, the result of appraisal commission to appraiser D by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the damage of water leakage in this case was caused by defects in the installation and preservation of the Defendant’s residential water waterproof layer and pipes, which are structures owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage incurred by water leakage in this case. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, other than the above defects, also caused damage to the Plaintiff’s toilets, external beer abutting on the Plaintiff’s residential water pipe and the main bank, and the damage was caused to the lower external wall, and even if the Defendant’s water pipe was not the Defendant’s residential water pipe heat, it was caused by the failure to manage the second multi-household apartment stairs owned by the Defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the results of the above appraisal commission, the number of persons generated in the toilet site of the Plaintiff’s house is the case.