1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is asserted as follows. The plaintiff claims against the defendant for damages equivalent to the cost of interior works due to water leakage, and damages due to damage to raw materials and finished products due to flood, and damages equivalent to the total amount of damages and damages equivalent to the value of the damaged goods, and damages for delay.

The plaintiff is a company that engages in printing business as set forth in 119 underground by the SKte Commission, located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government additional digital1, and the defendant is the company that moved into the above Tururur B 404.

On June 15, 2013, the defendant's employee retired from the water supply tap installed in Vietnam.

However, the employee did not arrange the drain pipe by gathering that the drain pipe of the Vietnama was unable to facilitate drainage due to the interior works at the time.

Therefore, the tap water has not been drained through the drainage apparatus installed on the bend floor of the bend and the water has leaked due to the gap in the part of installing the water measuring apparatus installed in the benda with water.

The water was caused by flood damage to the plaintiff's workplace through the drainage channel. The water was caused by flood damage to the plaintiff's workplace.

2. According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and Gap evidence Nos. 18, it is recognized that the defendant's employee did not lock the Vietnam tap water at the time of retirement, and that the water was being drained in Vietnam because the drainage through the discharge pipe of Vietnam at the time was not smooth.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the inundation alleged by the plaintiff was caused by the defendant's negligence in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

① According to the images of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 18, and the appraiser Gap's appraisal results, the causes of flood damage in the plaintiff's workplace shall be a ventilator with high water installed underground.