1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the aggregate building of the first basement and the third story above ground in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) 201, and the Defendant is the owner of the instant building 301.

B. However, after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of subparagraph 201 of the instant building, water leakage was generated in the toilet drainage pipes of the instant building 301, and the natural parts of the instant building 201 were damaged.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute exists, Gap's statements or videos (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, it is reasonable to deem that the leakage of the building 301 caused by the Defendant’s management negligence, barring any special circumstance, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff suffered property damage therefrom. As such, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for property damage as a result of the performance of the obligation to compensate for damages arising from

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 and the argument as a whole, it can be acknowledged that each of the costs of KRW 2,508,100 for restoration to the original state for the construction of the building No. 201 and KRW 350,000 for the disposal of waste. Thus, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 2,858,100 for restoration to the original state and the disposal of waste.

B. From November 18, 2016 to December 2, 2017, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 18,405,000 equivalent to the rent prescribed in subparagraph 201 of the instant building, which occurred due to the failure to rent 201 units of the instant building from November 18, 2016 to December 2, 2017.

However, there is no evidence supporting the fact that leakage has continued from November 18, 2016 to December 2, 2017 of the instant building No. 301, and that the Plaintiff failed to lease No. 201 of the instant building due to leakage occurring under subparagraph 301 of the instant building, as well as evidence Nos. 6 and 8.