1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 4,089,00 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from December 23, 2017 to October 15, 2019 against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Suwon-gu Kuwon-si C apartment D (hereinafter “Plaintiff apartment”), and the Defendant is the owner of the Plaintiff’s apartment E, the upper floor of the apartment (hereinafter “Defendant apartment”).

B. On April 9, 2017, a large quantity of water leakage in the Defendant apartment (hereinafter “instant water leakage”) was destroyed by the design of the Plaintiff’s apartment building, including a kitchen, a multi-use room, and a kitchen.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 9, result of on-site verification by this court, purport of the whole pleadings (on-site verification report by a professional examiner)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 13,289,100 to the cost of repairing the main room, multi-use room, indoor room, balcony, etc. of the Plaintiff apartment. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the part acknowledged the causal relationship with the instant accident is KRW 4,089,00 for the repair cost incurred in the main room, multi-use room, kitchen, small room, kitchen, kitchen, room, etc., and the excess part cannot be acknowledged the causal relationship with the instant water leakage.

(In particular, although the plaintiff alleged that the balcony and the balcony of the living room were damaged by the water leakage in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the water leakage in this case seems to have a structure that makes it impossible to flow out into the balcony through the tent.

Next, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 1,711,00 for the expenses to be incurred in lodging in other places for repair due to the leakage of water in this case. However, the Plaintiff spent the expenses for accommodation only on the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted thereto.

It is difficult to view that mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff is serious to the extent that it can not be compensated as damages for property damage.

The mental suffering caused by property damage is serious to the extent that compensation for property damage can not be compensated only.