1. All appeals by the defendant (appointed party) and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed;

2. Costs for appeal and incidental appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance makes an additional judgment as to the part concerning the appeal and incidental appeal as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is also cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

A. The grounds for appeal and the judgment of the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to compensate for the toilet construction cost, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff voluntarily determined that his toilet was the cause for water leakage, and that the Defendant did not bear the obligation to compensate for the toilet construction cost, etc. In light of the circumstances and evidence alleged by the Defendant in the trial, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had engaged in the toilet construction, etc. at his own judgment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, witness D,

The reasoning of the incidental appeal and the judgment of the plaintiff are as follows: since the defendant instigated residents to use the toilet construction, etc., and caused the plaintiff and his family members to suffer severe mental distress, the plaintiff and his family seeking consolation money of KRW 4,00,000 due to mental damage caused by the tort. In order to accept the claim for consolation money, the existence of special circumstances that can be recognized that the compensation for property damage alone causes irrecoverable mental distress and the possibility of predictability of such special circumstances should be presumed (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da36159, Feb. 13, 1997). The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 4. Conclusion, the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed as it is without merit.