1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the C apartment D (hereinafter “Plaintiff apartment”) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and the Defendant is the owner of E, the upper floor of which is the E (hereinafter “Defendant apartment”).

B. On May 12, 2017, the Defendant contacted the lessee of the Defendant’s apartment to the effect that the Defendant would be entitled to enjoy the Plaintiff’s apartment due to the Defendant’s apartment. On May 13, 2017, the Defendant was examined on the Plaintiff’s apartment on May 13, 2017. At the time, the Defendant accepted the Defendant’s apartment distribution machine because the Defendant’s apartment was placed in the boiler distribution unit near the Defendant’s boiler distribution unit.

C. On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent fung photographs to the ceiling and wall of the Plaintiff apartment building due to water leakage from the lessee of the apartment, and contacted the Defendant with respect to water leakage issues on July 19, 2017. The Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff undergo a diagnosis by a specialist on the reason that the cause of water leakage is not clear.

Accordingly, on July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff requested a water leakage diagnosis to a water leakage diagnosis business entity, and the Defendant called the Plaintiff on July 21, 2017, to the effect that “the cause of water leakage as a result of the verification appears to be attributable to the Defendant’s apartment, and thus there is no need to conduct a water leakage diagnosis.” The Plaintiff revoked the contract for water leakage diagnosis, and the Defendant said that fung will double the part to the Plaintiff.

E. Since then, when there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the scope of damages caused by water leakage, the Plaintiff followed the Plaintiff’s construction work on October 26, 2017, for the replacement and painting of the Plaintiff’s apartment complex.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 10, 11, 13 through 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen in the above basic facts as to the establishment of the liability for damages, the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant’s water source near the Defendant apartment distribution season, while checking the water leakage of the Plaintiff apartment.