손해배상(기) 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Of multi-household houses with C ground sculptures and concrete slab roof 3 floors, the plaintiff is living in the basement level, the defendant is living in the first floor, and each of the above buildings has completed registration of preservation of ownership on December 18, 1989, and there is no dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments in subparagraphs 3-1 and 2.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The plaintiff alleged that water leakage was generated on the first floor of the company, and after July 2, 2015 when the defendant executed water leakage construction works, it is evident that water leakage was generated on the first floor even in view of the fact that water leakage has disappeared. As a result of water leakage, water leakage flows into the main ceiling and walls of the plaintiff's residence, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff. The defendant asserts that the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the expenses for distribution of water equivalent to KRW 560,00,000,000, which is the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to defects in the installation and preservation of the structure, and the cost for replacement of the motor vehicle, KRW 242,00,000,000,000,000,000 won.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s residential building solely based on the descriptions and videos of Gap’s 1, Gap’s 2, Eul’s 4, and Gap’s 6-1 through 5, and the building that had completed the registration of ownership preservation on December 18, 1989, which had been completed on December 18, 1989, is sufficiently likely to cause water leakage on the first floor due to natural aging, other than the area under the Defendant’s de facto control.
It is not sufficient to recognize that water flows out of the basement of the plaintiff's residence or due to that reason, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.