beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.12 2018나68063

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' respective claims corresponding to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, witness D of the first instance trial, testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection of this Court:

A. The plaintiff A is the owner of the E apartment house F in Gwangju City, and the plaintiff B is the owner of the above apartment apartment G, and the defendant is the owner of the above apartment house H.

B. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant purchased air conditioners, and on August 2016, the Defendant installed the air conditioners above H through I, who received a request for installation from the air conditioners selling company for the first time on August 2016.

I, at the time of the installation of the above air conditioner, connected the air conditioner drainage pipe to the public air conditioner on the floor of the living room in the above H.

C. On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff A found water to fall from the ceiling of the living room above F, and Plaintiff B knew that water was drained on the G floor above.

(hereinafter “instant water accident”). D.

Plaintiff

B) Around that time, J Insurance Co., Ltd. received the instant water leakage accident, and the said insurance company conducted an investigation into the accident investigation to the effect that “At the time of the installation of air conditioners in the above H, the air conditioners connected the air conditioners to the public air conditioners located on the H surface at the time of the installation of air conditioners, and the public air conditioners could not easily flow out from the public air conditioners, and thus, flow back back to the floor of the above G subparagraph’s living room and flow out to the ceiling of the living room in the above F subparagraph’s living room.”

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they are liable for damages to the defendant for the following reasons, and the plaintiff A paid 8,986,534 won which is the sum of 5,86,534 won for remuneration, 100,000 won for cleaning, and 3,00,000 won for solatium, and the plaintiff B paid 8,986,534 won which is the sum of 1,733,30 won for remuneration, 300,000 won for water leakage, 3,000 won for solatium, and 5,033,30 won which is the sum of 3,00,000 won for solatium.