The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the defects in the installation or preservation of the section for exclusive use on the upper floor are not attributable to the cases where the rainwater from the outer wall of the section for common use of the apartment 1st unit showed water from the floor of the upper floor at the same time as the floor of the upper floor, which forms the ceiling of the lower floor and water leakage on the ceiling, etc

The case holding that it cannot be viewed that the defects in the installation or preservation of the section for exclusive use on the upper floor are not caused by the following cases where rainwater is leaked from the outer wall of the section for common use of the apartment, and it is turned out from the floor of the upper floor at the same time as the floor of the upper floor, which forms the ceiling of the lower floor.

[1] Articles 215 and 758 of the Civil Code, Article 3 and Article 6 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da9269 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1447) Supreme Court Decision 94Da50380 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2989) Decided June 8, 1993

Attorney Park Young-chul (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

c)Financial resources

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall decide to pay to the plaintiff 28,346,280 won with interest of 25% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the day of full payment.

1. recognised basic facts;

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in relation to Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1 through 17, 1, 2, 3, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 1-2, 3, and 2-3, the results of the on-site verification by this court, the results of the fact inquiry by the appraiser and the results of the appraisal by the appraiser Kim Jong-chul, and there is no counter-written evidence.

A. From April 29, 196, the Plaintiff owned and occupied the 15th floor 101 m3.51 m2, 123.51 m2, 15th floor of the ground reinforced concrete structure, such as Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant owned and occupied the above 101 m2, 1505 m2, and the above 101 m2, 1991 m2, located immediately above from January 28, 1997. The above 101m2 was completed on January 9, 1991.

(b)In order to find out the cause of the dispute arising between the plaintiff and the defendant from July 1997 due to water leakage in the ceiling, such as a embankment, a ward, a bedroom (inter-section between the present room and the living room) in 1405 above, it was diagnosed as a cause of the balcony floor height construction in 1505 on the summer in 1998, and checked as to whether it was a cause of the balcony floor height construction in 1505, and inspected the pipe leakage, etc. in 1505, while participating in the council of occupants' representatives, the management office has repaired the rupture of the balcony outer wall in 1505, but did not find a clear source of water leakage, so the treatment was not completed.

(c)On 191, the first 1505, Non-party 1, the former owner, damaged the walls of the structure of the sculpture and the windows, which consist of the boundaries between the balcony and the inside room, the room, and the bedroom 1, etc. of the front balcony, and then changed the string floor of the balcony to the room by putting the string floor of the balcony at a height equal to the inside room (hereinafter referred to as "the instant balcony expansion work"), and changed to the room by putting the string floor of the said balcony at a height equal to the inside room (hereinafter referred to as "the instant balcony expansion work"), and damaged some inner walls, such as the restaurant and the kitchen, and made a wide structural change in the space. The above construction work of the height of the balcony floor (the foregoing construction work), including the above 1405 degrees, was done at several households with the above 101 unit of household

(d)The present 1405 Nos. 1405 above is Fungi fung and ice fungs in each ceiling, wall, etc. of inside banks, wards, bedrooms, balconys, warehouses, and warehouses, and leaves a sloping of water leakages, such as floor board studs, and some cracks are discovered in balcony slives, and the degree of water leakage is particularly high in rain iron, etc.;

E. Appraiser (Appraiser) caused by the above water leakage, the inner embankment and its toilets Nos. 1505 above 1405, 1405, e.g., the cracks of the roof floor, floor slabs, softs, etc., waterproof damage and matsing strings, etc., the living room shall be the strings around the front lake and the air strings due to the increase in water supply due to the expansion of balcony construction in this case, the racks, waterproof damage and dracks, etc., the bedroom 1 caused the increase in water supply due to the increase in water supply due to the expansion of balcony construction, the cracks in the balcony spring and the increase in water supply due to the extension of balcony construction, and the increase in water supply in the living room and water supply due to the extension of balcony construction, and the increase in water supply and water supply in the living room and water supply of the above part, which are directly related to the above 1st of the balcony construction work, were conducted.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that the above water leakages set forth in 1405 above are due to defects in the construction and preservation of structures (the above apartment units No. 1505) that did not thoroughly preserve and manage such structures (the above apartment units) so that the defendant does not affect the below floor with respect to the balcony slabs set forth in the above 1505. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant shall pay 20 million won as consolation money for the defect repair costs of 8,346,280 won (the above apartment units No. 1505 + KRW 5,032,592 + KRW 3,313,688), and the plaintiff's mental suffering as consolation money for the plaintiff's mental distress, and that the above water leakages are the whole apartment units caused by defective construction, and there is no relation with the above balcony expansion construction work.

Therefore, considering the location of the above 101 unit construction year, the above 1405 and 1505 unit, the above 101 unit construction period, the above 1405 unit construction period and the water leakage time, the water leakage of the above 1405 unit construction period and the above 1505 unit construction period and the above 1405 unit construction period, the water leakage of the above 1405 unit can not be seen as a water leakage of the above 1405 unit or a water leakage of the above 1405 unit construction due to the above 140 unit construction period, and the above 140 unit construction period cannot be determined differently from the above 15 unit construction due to the above 15 unit construction due to the leakage of water, and there is no reason to conclude that the water leakage of the above 1405 unit construction method and the above 1405 unit construction method can be seen as a new water leakage of the above 1405 unit construction due to the above 1 unit construction method.

Therefore, the number of the above 1405 units is due to the defect in the above 101 unit outer wall, and the above outer wall of the apartment building is structural common area as necessary to maintain the exterior or safety of the building (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da32272, Jun. 8, 1993; 94Da50380, Sept. 10, 1996; 94Da50380, Sept. 10, 196; etc.). The outer wall of the above 1505 units is provided for the public use of the above 101 unit owner. The damage caused by the defect in common area is back to the responsibility of all the owners of the common area, and therefore, it is ultimately deemed that the council of occupants' representatives or the management body is responsible for it (see Article 6 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.