1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the judgment on the basic facts and major issues is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the part of “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Judgment on major issues,” and thus, the part corresponding to the Defendants is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for internal construction costs, the Plaintiff’s interior of the rooftop waterproof floor was damaged, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 600,000 to the tenants two times on or around September 2010, and around October 2013, the Plaintiff spent KRW 4,620,00 as construction cost. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally with G, D, and E, and the Defendants bear the above construction cost (limited to 5/6). The causes of the rooftop water generation are damage to the rooftop floor. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 6-1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 462,00 to the Plaintiff’s interior repair work around October 7, 2013, since the Plaintiff’s share of construction cost was damaged to the section for common use, the Defendants are obligated to manage the section for common use under the ratio of the Plaintiff’s share to the section for common use.

On the other hand, around September 2010, the construction of water leakages inside the plaintiff's partitioned building was done.

There is no evidence that the Plaintiff paid 600,000 won to the revenue around that time.

Examining the amount of construction cost to be shared by each Defendant, Defendant B is KRW 791,197 (=4,620,000 + KRW 41.43/241.92; KRW 41.43/241.92; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Defendant C is KRW 748,802 (=4,620,000 + 39.21/241.92).

Therefore, Defendant B is the Plaintiff on 791.