1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. C leased 102 of the Dong-dong, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant detached house”), and the Plaintiff resided in the said house as C’s mother.

B. E around 2007, around 2007, leased and resided in the second floor of the instant detached house, and the Defendant is the husband of E.

C. On January 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant resided in the instant detached house, and the second floor water is the same as the instant detached house, and water flows into the first floor of the instant detached house.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 5, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 3-1 and 2-2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit against the defendant should be dismissed since the lessee of the second floor of the instant detached house is E, but in the performance lawsuit, the person alleged by the plaintiff as the performance obligor has the standing to be the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. On January 2012, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for property damage and consolation money totaling KRW 5 million, including cleaning cost of KRW 30 to 500,000,00,000, and KRW 700,000,000,00,000,000,000,000 won, inasmuch as household tools, electronic equipment, clothes, and bedclothess, etc. within 102 of the instant detached house residing by the Plaintiff due to the water leakage below the second floor of the instant detached house.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of damages in the first instance court amount to KRW 10 million, but the Plaintiff appealed to KRW 5 million among them, so the scope of the Plaintiff’s appeal is limited to the above amount of appeal). However, the Defendant’s ground that the Plaintiff is a lessee who resides in the second floor of the instant detached house is insufficient to conclude that the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages due to the same frequency of the second floor of the instant detached house, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is a cause attributable to the above frequency.