손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,211,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 15, 2017 to January 8, 2019.
1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s apartment room”). The Defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s apartment room”). The Defendant’s apartment room No. 2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s apartment room”) is the owner of the Plaintiff’s apartment room, water leakage in the drain pipe of the Defendant’s apartment room located on the lower floor, and the Plaintiff’s apartment room No. 1, inside ceiling, walls and floors, most of the ceiling and walls in the main apartment room, and walls in the main apartment zone and balcony, part of the wall’s ceiling-2, the apartment room-2, the part of the ceiling on the front side of the balcony-2, the ceiling and the wall on the front side of the balcony-2 main room, and there is no dispute between the parties, or evidence No. 1 and No. 2, evidence No. 1 to No. 43, No. 43, A-1 and No. 2, and evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 98-1 through evidence No.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by defects in the installation and preservation of the apartment house room by the defendant, who is a structure owned by the defendant.
2. Scope of damages.
A. In full view of the purport of the appraisal by the appraiser C of the construction cost for restoration to the original state, it can be acknowledged that the construction cost requires KRW 8,931,00 as the construction cost for restoring damaged parts caused by water leakage in the plaintiff's apartment house room, and the defendant is liable to pay the same amount as the damages to the plaintiff.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff's initial cause of water leakage was delayed to ascertain the cause of water leakage as a consequence of the plaintiff's erroneous assertion that water leakage was rainwater inflow, and thus, the expanded damage part should be excluded from the scope of the defendant's liability. Thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only by the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.