양수금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) under the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the “Expert B” of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “Expert B of the court of first instance”; and (b) under the third page to 14 shall be deemed as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the two pages to 6 shall be dismissed as follows; and (c) under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Parts to be dried;
C. We examine the Defendant’s assertion 1) individually, the Defendant’s assertion that the defect of “automobile items” under the following subparagraphs should be excluded from the object of defect repair or the cost of defect repair should be reduced for the following reasons. The Defendant’s argument that the defect of “automobile items” should be examined in sequential order. A) [Attachment 1] the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s argument (A) is that the Defendant installed a Dong-shaped pipe pipe pipe (hereinafter “this case’s apartment pipe”) that meets the KS standards, and installed a water ion concentration in the pipe. The water ion concentration in the pipe is also normal level.
Nevertheless, the occurrence of corrosion on the pipe of this case is a fundamental cause for the cell phenomenon caused by the destruction of an oxygen divers from the oil discharged from the pipe and the difference in the concentration of an ozone layer. Such destruction and batteries phenomenon caused by the increase in the concentration of ionoculic concentration that affect corrosion because water inside the pipe is not periodically replaced. Thus, the defect in the above item constitutes not a defect in construction but a defect in use.
(b) even if there are defects in construction.
Even if an appraiser calculated the cost of demolishing the whole of the instant sprinkler and reconstruction as the repair cost, the apartment household of the instant apartment where water leakage has been verified from the singr pipe pipes is only part of the apartment household of the instant apartment, and the water leakage has not been verified in all households of the instant apartment, and even if all the 29 cases claimed by the Plaintiff are recognized as a piner water leakage, the number of cases so far.