2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the resident of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The defendant is the owner of 601 Dong-601 of the apartment of this case, and the defendant is the owner of 601 Dong-601 of the apartment of this case, due to the 601 toilet remodeling work and the moving work for the distribution period of living room heating room, the plaintiff's inner toilet candle of the apartment of the apartment of which the plaintiff is living. The plaintiff was laid down and the water was generated, the day of the kitchen of the kitchen, the day of the kitchen of the kitchen of this case, and the damage occurred, such as the plaintiff's 10 million won in the damages claim and the delay damages therefrom.

B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had performed the construction of the 601 toilet remodeling work and the installation of the cell heating system (the Plaintiff did not disclose the timing of the construction), and there was the fact that the Plaintiff had performed such construction.

Even if so, there is a lack of proof that the plaintiff suffered damages.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit to examine further.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the court of first instance are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.