1. The Defendant’s Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Gadan18785 decided May 14, 2018.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 18, the plaintiff confirmed the water source to perform water leakage prevention work for water leakage prevention work in accordance with paragraph (1) of the instant conciliation protocol, the plaintiff was unable to perform water leakage construction work due to the occurrence of water leakage, among the buildings owned by the plaintiff, because there are no causes for water leakage in the part part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 1, 1, among the buildings owned by the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the causes of water leakage are presumed to be the problem of rooftop sewage for the part other than the plaintiff's building, and there is no reflect

The above adjustment clause is premised on the fact that water leakage was generated in the part of the Plaintiff’s building, but it is difficult to perform necessary water leakage construction works in another place. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above adjustment clause is in a situation where water leakage prevention is unnecessary in light of social norms or performance is impossible without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff, since the premise is not satisfied, even if water leakage prevention construction works are carried out at all, it is difficult to achieve the effect of water leakage prevention in the Defendant’s building. Therefore, it is reasonable