1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the ground E of the Seo-gu Incheon Western apartment, and the defendant is the owner of the same aggregate building D.

B. As water leakage has occurred from the ceiling of an apartment owned by the Plaintiff, there was a loss that is caused by the fall of the wall and columns of the above apartment and the damage to the sckes and remote areas of the apartment owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 4, result of appraiser F's appraisal, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Since the water leakage and its damage incurred from the apartment owned by the Plaintiff as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim are included in the apartment owned by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to perform water leakage prevention work as part of the exclusion of interference with the Plaintiff’s ownership. In addition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 3,700,000 and KRW 1,650,000 for the construction cost to compensate the damage already incurred to the Plaintiff, and KRW 5,350,000 for the storage cost of corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff during the construction period, and delay damages for the construction cost of KRW 3,70

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the leakage from the apartment owned by the Plaintiff was caused by negligence, such as neglecting the management of the Defendant’s exclusive ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire argument of the appraiser's appraisal, the leakage of apartment owned by the plaintiff was found to have been caused by the gap between the vertical pipe, which is the common part of the apartment in this case, and the horizontal line from the toilets of the apartment owned by the defendant, and the gap between the vertical pipe and the horizontal line, it seems that the defect in the above vertical line is the defect in the common part of the apartment in this case, and it is difficult to hold the defendant liable for the defect.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.