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 Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C and 301 (hereinafter “instant 301”), who is residing in the said building, and the Defendant acquires the ownership of the said 401 building (hereinafter “instant 401”) that is the immediate upper floor around November 2017.

B. From around 2016, leakages occurred in the instant case 301, and the degree was more serious since the oil in 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant number”) . [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 401 was made by the former owner D, around 2014, about the foregoing No. 401, a large scale remodeling project involving the interior walls, etc. of the building. As a result, there was rupture on the outer wall of the building, and the number of pages No. 301 of the instant case occurred.

Therefore, the defendant should carry out the following construction for the prevention of leakage according to the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of disturbance based on ownership. If the plaintiff fails to carry out the construction within one month from the delivery date of the original copy of the judgment, the amount calculated by the ratio of one million won per month until the completion date of the execution shall be paid to the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff is suffering from physical and mental pain due to the leakage of this case, and the plaintiff seeks payment of 2 million won as consolation money to the defendant.

Water leakage prevention works for water leakage prevention works, the vicinity of a window, and the roof rupture by removing the toilet floor, and performing waterproof treatment, and by re-duplicing other works, water leakage prevention works for the interior walls of water leakage prevention works, and

B. First of all, determination as to the claim for water leakage prevention works and indirect compulsory performance, the fact that water leakage occurred in the instant case No. 301 can be acknowledged according to the following descriptions and images: (a) the Defendant is obligated to remove the toilet floor and perform waterproof construction works; and (b) the Defendant is obligated to remove the toilet floor; and (c) the written evidence and images of No. 3

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 14.