beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 8.95 million for property damage caused by the tort against the Defendant, including KRW 8.95 million for medical expenses and consolation money for mental damage. The first instance court received only the above property damage claim, and dismissed the above medical expenses and consolation money claim.
Accordingly, the defendant only appealed against the cited portion of the claim for damages on property, and the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the cited portion of the claim for damages on property.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The plaintiff is a resident of L01 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff room") of 301 Dong (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"). The defendant is a resident of the above room immediately above the above room (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant room"). The defendant has obtained water from the floor in the defendant room as a result of long-term outflow without properly locking the tap taps connected to laundry season. Accordingly, water leakage occurred in the plaintiff room around August 2, 2015. The water leakage occurred from the plaintiff room around August 2, 2015. The water leakage occurred in the plaintiff room's room and room's ceiling and room's ceiling, wall, floor, attached houses, etc., which are damaged by flooding or fung, and the defendant is not disputed between the parties or is a resident of the above room, and the defendant is liable for damages including Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 98, and 9, the plaintiff's entire number of pleading or evidence No.
B. As to this, the Defendant’s distribution and distribution network structure of the Defendant’s room is narrow, and the Plaintiff’s room and the Defendant’s room are inappropriate to construct smugglings between the Plaintiff’s room and the Defendant’s room, and the leakage of this case was due to the defective construction by the Defendant.