logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.19 2016가단122833
손해배상(기) 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 4 commercial buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building 4”) among the Daegu Suwon-gu B Main Complex Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant condominium building”), and the Defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives comprised of the instant condominiums for the management of the apartment part among the instant condominiums (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”).

B. From July 28, 2016 to July 30, 2016, an area where the instant aggregate building is located, concentrated was made for three days.

C. On July 31, 2016, C, a lessee of the instant shopping mall 4, confirmed that the instant shopping mall 4 was sunken due to water leakage and the inside of the shopping mall 4 was flooded.

The part on the wall surface of the chemical group installed on the commercial rooftop of the instant condominium (hereinafter “instant chemical group”) was exposed to the said pipe (hereinafter “instant pipe”). However, the instant pipe is connected to the pipe pipe installed on the corridor of the instant apartment building, and the instant pipe is connected to the pipe pipe installed on the instant apartment building, and is connected to the middle library and the outer plane table on the ceiling of the instant commercial building No. 4.

On May 22, 2017, which was at the time of the on-site inspection by this Court, the end of the pipe in this case was cut, and the outer side of the pipe was filled by the repair work.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 5-1 to 11, and evidence 13-1 to 10, each of the images, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of occurrence of water leakage and flood of the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 4, D, an expert, found that the pipe was exposed to the wall surface of the instant building, and the pipe was connected to the pipe of the instant apartment pipe by going through an interim and external plane table on the ceiling of the instant building No. 4, and the pipe was connected to the pipe of the instant apartment pipe. At the time, the pipe was connected to the pipe of the instant apartment pipe, and the rainwater, which was used to the instant pipe, flows into the wall by drilling the pipe on the outer side.

arrow