beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.11 2013나6711

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Yangsan-si C Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant building”) is a building newly built on October 25, 1995, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the foregoing No. 413 from 413 to 2009 to March 29, 2012. The Defendant owned No. 512 inside the instant building from November 2, 1995 to June 7, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as "413" and "512" for each of the above units. (b)

No 413 is located below 512 and 513 as follows, approximately 2/3 of the ceiling 413 is adjacent to the floor of 513 and approximately 1/3 of the remainder is adjacent to the floor of 512:

513No. 512 No. 413

C. After acquiring the ownership of 413, the Plaintiff demanded the owners of 512 and 513 to perform a waterproof construction work on the outer wall and floor because there was a water leakage phenomenon in the 413cheon. Accordingly, the 513 owner around July 2012 and the 512 owner also performed a waterproof construction work on the floor on September 25, 2012.

Unlike the above waterproof construction, the Plaintiff waterproofed the 413th streaming construction. This waterproof construction works led from No. 513 to No. 413 and its concrete surrounding pipes.

E. Thereafter, around October 2012, the Plaintiff newly planned the 413cheon-gu in 2012, and built a tent in which lighting fixtures were installed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, each entry of evidence Nos. 5, witness D of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the water leakage phenomenon shown in the ceiling of 413 was generated by 512 and 513, which was laid on the ceiling of the river. Since 513 was completed a waterproof construction on the floor, it can be deemed that the water leakage phenomenon appeared pursuant to 512, which was not timely. The Plaintiff’s assertion is due to the water leakage.