1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

The defendant is an autonomous and management organization composed of occupants in accordance with the Housing Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the management of 700 households, Dong 700, Asan-si B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On July 17, 2015, C, the husband of the Plaintiff, purchased the instant apartment Nos. 110,1504 (hereinafter “instant exclusive ownership”) from D to KRW 200,000,000. On August 21, 2015, C, the Plaintiff, purchased the instant exclusive ownership transfer registration under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the said exclusive ownership.

After D directors came to know that there was a damage to the remote area, ceiling, floor, etc. of the apartment rooftop of this case, which is a common part, due to the leakage of the apartment rooftop of this case, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the rooftop and the portion of exclusive ownership damaged.

From September 9, 2015 to September 18, 2015, the Defendant completed repair works on the rooftop, which is the section for common use of the apartment of this case. However, the Defendant did not take any measures against the said section for common use owned by the Plaintiff.

D On February 17, 2016, due to the water leakage on the rooftop, it transferred its damage claim against the Defendant for damages arising from the instant section of exclusive ownership to the Plaintiff. At that time, it notified the Defendant of the damage claim.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2, Gap's evidence 4 through Gap's evidence 6, Gap's evidence 9, the ground for claim as a whole, and the ground for claim as to the purport of the whole argument, the defendant has a duty of care to prevent damage to the owner of the section for common use as a manager of the section for common use from causing damage to the owner of the section for common use.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and caused damage that water flows out due to the wall and ceiling of the multi-section for exclusive use in this case.

Therefore, D, the former owner of the instant section for exclusive use, is against the Defendant.