logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.06.09 2014가단11299
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who acquired the instant apartment No. 403 around December 2006, and the Defendant is the owner who acquired the said apartment No. 503 around July 1992.

B. After acquiring No. 403, the Plaintiff moved into the dwelling room after expanding beeras to the dwelling room.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered damage due to water leakage in the bendacheon and drain pipes of 403 benda, the extended dwelling space and the wall section of the living room. The water leakage damage of 403 is caused due to the failure to properly take flood control measures of 503 benda, and the defendant is responsible for defects in the installation and preservation of structures that do not thoroughly preserve and manage, such as waterproof measures not affecting the below floor of 503, and thus, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant as the lawsuit of this case seek the payment of 2,50,000 won as compensation for damages and its delay damages and sought the implementation of waterproof construction works of 503 as a claim for removal of interference based on ownership.

B. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each video of No. 2-1 to No. 5, the court may recognize the occurrence of mycocos in 403 on the benda, benda and drain pipes of 403, the extended ceiling and wall parts of the ward.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the opinion that all the phenomena appearing in No. 403 are unrelated to 503; and (b) the apartment building of this case is 26 years old after completion of construction and the fact that there are ruptures on the exterior wall of the building is discovered, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the damage in No. 403 was caused by the defect in the establishment and preservation of the section for exclusive use of No. 503.

arrow