1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is that the court added “No. 2” to “No. 18” following the “No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance,” and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the facts of recognition No. 1. 1.), except for adding “each description” after “each description” of No. 19 of the second 19 of the judgment, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the facts of recognition No. 1.

2. The reasoning for this part of the claim by the court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the summary of the plaintiff's claim) is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff's claim). As such, it

3. Determination

A. The grounds for this part of the court’s liability for damages are relevant to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. Restrictions on liability for damages are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, according to the above acknowledged facts, it is reasonable to deem that the discharge of waste from the Plaintiff’s apartment building to the wind that does not have a smooth drainage due to the sewage hole of the Plaintiff’s apartment building caused flood damage to the first underground floor. Thus, even if it is deemed that the waste from the Plaintiff’s apartment building to the Plaintiff’s apartment pipe was part of the causes of the Plaintiff’s sewage hole of the Plaintiff’s apartment building, even if the waste, etc. flow into the Plaintiff’s apartment house can be seen as a part of the causes of the Plaintiff’s sewage hole of the Plaintiff’s apartment building, the Plaintiff has a duty of care to frequently check and clean the sewage pipe and manage it so as not to cause flood damage. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform such duty of care was caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability should be limited to 90% in consideration of the Plaintiff’s negligence.