1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 102 Dong-dong 1402 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Defendant is the owner of 102 Dong-dong 1502 on the upper floor of the instant apartment.

B. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff occupied the instant apartment, and around June 2015, the Plaintiff extended the balcony of the instant apartment to use it as a living room.

C. Fung in November 2015, water leakage occurred in the apartment of this case, resulting in damage to either remote areas, inner walls, and inner walls at the bottom of the inner walls, and damage to remote areas, decorations, and brickd transactions.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant water damage”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry and video (including paper numbers) of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion caused water leakage damage to the instant apartment, which is the lower floor, due to the defects in C apartment 102, 1502, 1502, which are owned by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won for the cost of restoring the damage of the apartment of this case and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the causes of water leakage damage occurred due to defects in the apartment owned by the Defendant is difficult to acknowledge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the result of appraiser D’s appraisal, the cause of water leakage damage in this case is attributable to the Plaintiff’s construction work of expanding balcony of apartment buildings in this case.

(A) A construction project to expand the balcony of the instant apartment to a living room does not take preventive measures or construct a heating system or perform poor construction works, and it appears that water leakage occurred due to the phenomenon that occurred therefrom). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion does not need to take into account the remainder of the issue.