1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff is the owner of the second floor D(hereinafter referred to as “D”) of the C Housing in Seocho-si, and the Defendant is the owner of the third floor E(hereinafter referred to as “E”) of the C Housing. There is no dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant has a duty to repair water leakage causes if he/she cooperates with the Defendant on June 2017 to July 2017, after performing remodeling works, such as the windows and windows replacements of E, the change and replacements of the stitch location, and the removal of toilets bathing, etc., and the Defendant has a duty to remove water or to discharge rainwater depending on the wall. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has a duty to repair water leakage causes if he/she cooperates with the Defendant on the aforementioned water leakage causes in subparagraph D and it is found that the water leakage causes exist in the whole oil part of subparagraph 5.

First of all, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the appraisal commission for the appraiser F by this court, it is recognized that water leakage is being conducted in the inside bank and the bank bank.

However, it is found that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the cause of water leakage exists in the whole oil part of subparagraph E or that the Defendant caused ruptures in the building while performing remodeling works, and rather, according to the above appraisal entrustment, it is found that the water leakage did not run in each pipe of the above water leakage part of each water leakage part of subparagraph D in each pipe of the same location E of the above water leakage part and there is no particular error in the water leakage, and that the appraiser determined that the water leakage in the inside bank and the main dam of the inside bank was caused by the cracks and airspaces between floors caused by the lack of construction and deterioration of the building, and that it cannot be found that the heat was generated due to the vibration of the E remodeling work or that the water leakage in subparagraph D is being proceeded due to the increase in ruptures.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.