1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 16,949,90 as well as KRW 5,949,90 as from September 30, 2016 until November 15, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners who jointly own the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”) in proportion to one half of the co-ownership. The Defendant is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si apartment No. 3 and No. 707 (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”) immediately preceding the Plaintiff’s building, and the entire aggregate building in the Plaintiff’s building and the Defendant’s building (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. From the end of 2015, Fung took place in the ceiling and the wall of the inner bank, living room, and main entrance of the Plaintiff building, and Fungco fells from the wall, and E who leased and resided in the Plaintiff’s building was transferred from the Plaintiff’s building on February 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 5, and Gap evidence 7 (Evidence with Serial Number) and images, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of appraiser F's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by water leakage since the water leakage occurred in the greenhouse pipe of the defendant's building.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with on the ground that, around January 2016, G was not found when G discovered leakage (No. 1), the leakage can not continue for several months after the replacement of hot water pipes (No. 8-1), and that it was deemed that the old hot water pipe was sold by detecting excessive water pressure (No. 9-1 and No. 11 of evidence No. 9), and that the cause of leakage of the building was not necessarily on the upper floor.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole based on the results of the on-site verification conducted by the appraiser F and the statement No. 10, No. 11, and 11 and the appraisal conducted by appraiser F and the overall purport of the pleadings, the number of the greenhouse water pipes of the Defendant building.