1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,219,624 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 30, 2012 to October 24, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building at a successful bid, and the Defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives comprised of the owners of B apartments, including the instant building.

B. As water leakage (hereinafter “water leakage in this case”) occurred from the ceiling of the instant building, water is contaminated by the ceiling of the instant building, such as electric lights, electric wires, location, contact lines, etc. inside the wall, and water is generated by the Plaintiff, such as underground wires, contact lines, etc.

C. The water leakage of the instant building is due to the damage of water meters and XL units installed in the first floor Schlage on the ground of the instant building, and the Defendant repaired the damaged part at its own expense on April 16, 2012 during the instant lawsuit.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 5 through 7, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff sought compensation for damages caused by water leakage in this case against the defendant. The defendant asserts that the water leakage in this case was caused by the damage of water meters in the first floor Schlage, which is the exclusive part, and that the defendant is only responsible for the damage caused by the defect in common area, and that the defendant has no standing to be a party to the lawsuit in this case.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be the defendant in the lawsuit for performance is nominal by the plaintiff's own claim and the judgment is absorptioned into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the claimant is a legitimate defendant (Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451 delivered on November 28, 1995). Thus, the defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit without any need to examine it.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff could not rent the building from October 6, 2010 to October 6, 201, and thus, the Plaintiff could not obtain rent equivalent to KRW 850,000 per month. The Plaintiff’s claim is contaminated by the ceiling.