손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 23,891,524 as well as to the plaintiff on August 2016.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case as described below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2. 2. 2 Myeon-19, 3 Myeon-18, 20 Myeon-1, 5 Myeon-8, 6 Myeon-7 Myeon-1, 19 Myeon-1, 20 Myeon-1, 20 Myeon-1, 3
6 to 8 pages of the first instance judgment shall be deleted.
The part of the "4. conclusion" of the first instance judgment from 19 to 7 pages 6 shall be followed as follows.
c. The limitation of liability for damages: Provided, That if the instant building had been built for at least 20 years after the construction of the instant building, and leakage phenomenon occurred on the wall of a bath and other wall of the instant building in addition to the part of the bath bed floor corresponding to the size of the instant building as well as the part of the wall of a bath and other wall of the instant building, it appears that the deterioration of the instant building is also partly causing water leakage, and it is practically difficult to strictly distinguish the part caused by mistake in the use and management of the Defendant’s bath bath among water leakage damages from water leakage and the parts caused by the deterioration of the building from the building itself (the appraiser I pointed out only water sources, and did not discover the deterioration of the pipe itself. However, although the question of leakage caused by the deterioration of the instant building is difficult to conduct appraisal because there is no relevant data, the result of appraisal of concrete sludge does not interfere with the recognition of partial deterioration of the building.
The Defendant had a problem of water leakage before acquiring a bath around July 2010, and the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the former owner on this ground, and the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the former owner after one year from leaving the instant subparagraph D and urged the Defendant to accept the lawsuit between them.