손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The fact that water leakage occurred in the fields of multi-use rooms, boiler rooms, stove rooms, and bathing rooms, etc. under the Plaintiff-owned from May 2013, 201, which were the main causes of water leakage of boiler pipes of 201, 301, 301, which were owned by the Defendant-owned Busan Suwon-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do, and were located, and were located in the part of the Plaintiff-owned from May 2013, 201, which were located in the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant building”) and located in the Plaintiff-owned by the Defendant, may be recognized by taking into account the absence of any dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of the arguments in the first instance trial as a whole.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's negligence of neglecting the management and repair of the building owned by him has caused water leakage in the building of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.
B. Regarding the scope of compensation for damages, according to the appraisal by the above appraiser, it is recognized that the amount of 8,924,000 won is required for the repair cost for the part above water leakages of the building of this case. Thus, the amount of compensation for damages against the plaintiff Eul, the owner of the building of this case, shall be KRW 8,924,00,000, and the compensation for damages against the plaintiff Eul, the resident of the building of this case, shall be set at KRW 2,00,000, considering the degree and scope of damage
2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion was newly constructed by the plaintiff B at around 1986, and the number of the buildings in this case occurred due to the defect in the pipe construction. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the liability therefrom lies in the plaintiff B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a defect in the pipeline construction at the time of the construction of the above loan, and instead, it cannot be viewed that the loan was caused by the defect in the new construction construction at the time when 25 years or more have passed since the loan was newly constructed at around 1986, and it cannot be viewed that it was caused by the defect in the new construction.
3. Conclusion A.