1. From January 11, 2014 to May 26, 2016, the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff.

1. The fact of recognition is the owner of Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Plaintiff Loan”) No. 201, the Plaintiff is the owner of Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Plaintiff Loan”). The Defendant is the owner and occupant of the above building No. 301 (hereinafter “Defendant Loan”).

On October 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff suffered damage from water leakage on the ceiling and wall of the Plaintiff’s laund water valve installed in Defendant Ba, which was caused by the damage to the valve.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-3-1, 3-3, Gap evidence 5-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion reveals that water leakage was damaged due to the damage to the laundry water valve installed in Defendant Lone, and the Defendant, the owner and possessor of Defendant Lone, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 4,105,530 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, as the owner and possessor of Defendant Lone’s loan, violated the duty of preservation, management, and repair of the valves installed on his own loan, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for such damage.

Furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the repair cost for damage caused by leakage of water by Plaintiff Ba from Plaintiff Ba reaches KRW 4,105,530 with respect to the scope of compensation for damage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

However, the Defendant: (a) stated to the effect that the Plaintiff’s delivery cost for the Plaintiff’s Dolle was 500,000 won to KRW 600,000; (b) and (c) was part of the amount of damages by referring to the written application for the documentary evidence dated June 3, 2015; and (c) accordingly, (d) recognized KRW 500,000 as the Plaintiff’s amount of damages.

Therefore, from January 11, 2014, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is deemed reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the obligation of this case.