2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the artificial park construction around December 15, 2016 in order to reside in Suwon-gu EM F.

B. Around December 3, 2016, the Defendant completed the boiler and pipeline replacement works, etc. with the owner of G on the immediately upper upper floor of the above F, and around December 3, 2016.

C. Around January 2017, the ceiling and floor level of Fho Lake have been flooded due to water leakages, and the cost of construction works to repair it is KRW 1,364,00.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the result of the commission of appraisal to the appraiser H of the first instance court, the result of the commission of appraisal to the appraiser I of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not reside in F for six months because of water leakages generated from G owned by the Defendant, the total floor was flooded, and the Plaintiff did not reside in F for six months, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 13.64 million and the total amount of KRW 16.4 million and the amount equivalent to the rent for six months, the Defendant asserts that the damage from water leakages generated from F is caused by water leakages in J-ho or the deterioration of the instant device itself (the total cost of the repair is accepted, and the amount equivalent to the rent was appealed only by the Defendant with respect to the judgment of the first instance that was entirely dismissed).

Judgment

(1) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the damage from leakage occurred in the Defendant’s G, and the testimony of the witness of the first instance court is a construction business operator who is likely to be liable for the damage from leakage occurred in the F, in view of the fact that K is a construction business operator who is likely to be liable for the damage from leakage occurred in the F, by taking into account the following circumstances, by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as to where the evidence mentioned above, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence No. 15-1 to No. 4, No. 15-6, No. 16-1, and No. 2.