손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The plaintiff is the owner of a house located in Busan Shipping Daegu C (hereinafter "DB"), and the defendant is the owner of DB F (the third floor of DB lending is indicated to the fifth floor, not the fourth floor) who is the immediate upper floor referred to in the above sub-paragraph (the third floor of DB lending is indicated to the fifth floor). The plaintiff is not in dispute between the parties or acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
(a) As a result of an appraiser’s appraisal, the appraiser shall respect the appraisal method unless the appraisal method, etc. is contrary to the rule of experience or is so unreasonable or otherwise unreasonable;
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790 Decided November 29, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 201). According to the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser G of the first instance trial, the results of the request for appraisal supplementation, the fact inquiry results, and the overall purport of pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the instant water leakage occurred due to the Plaintiff’s inflow of tap water due to the Plaintiff’s water flow, such as the fall and the fall and the fall and the fall and the part of the entrance of the Plaintiff’s DNA-E around January 18, 2018.
Defect in the installation or preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act means that a structure has no safety to be ordinarily equipped for its intended purpose.
In this context, the safety that should have been originally established refers to the safety required not only to the safety of the structure itself, but also to the safety required under the circumstances where the structure is actually installed and used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da227103, Aug. 29, 2017). According to the above fact-finding, it is reasonable to view that the leakage of the instant case was caused by the defect of the part of exclusive ownership F, Dogra.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the water leakage of this case.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff is entitled to the instant case.