A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment D (hereinafter “D”)

(E) The owner and the person who is residing in the above sub-paragraph (D) and the defendant is the upper house of the above sub-paragraph (hereinafter referred to as the "E").

(2) From September 23, 2017 to September 23, 2017, damage from water leakage (hereinafter referred to as “water leakage damage”) occurred to the owner and the person leased the said title to F. (2) from the ceiling of subparagraph D, and on the same day, from the water leakage on the ceiling of subparagraph E, the milch phenomenon occurred.

3) On September 23, 2017, the Plaintiff knew of the water leakage damage of this case to the said C Apartment Management Office, and employees of the Management Office informed the Defendant of the water leakage damage of this case through F and Defendant Finding on the same day. 4) The Defendant, on September 25, 2017, declared that the Defendant would repair the water leakage damage of this case after the completion of Gho Lake’s construction, to the employees of the Management Office in the above C Apartment G (hereinafter “G”) which is the upper part of the E head office (hereinafter “G”).

5) On October 22, 2017, H, the owner of the foregoing G, had a waterproof construction around the public bath room. Nevertheless, as the water leakage damage of this case continued, the Defendant requested I to perform the water leakage detection and repair construction on October 30, 2017, and I confirmed that the water leakage occurred in the pipes in front of the public toilet for Eho Lake, and that the employees of the above management office did not flow water any more in the common ditch for D on November 1, 2017.

[Ground for recognition - Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 13, 20

(ii)each of the statements or images set forth in Eul evidence 3, 9, and 15, witness J, H, and I’s testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings;

B. The plaintiff asserts that the leakage damage in this case occurred due to the leakage in subparagraph E, and the defendant asserts that the leakage damage in this case occurred due to the leakage in subparagraph G.