1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,396,548 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 22, 2019 to May 15, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s Dadong-dong (hereinafter “instant building”) in Gwangju City, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Housing”); and the Defendant is the owner of the instant building E (hereinafter “Defendant’s Housing”) that is the immediate upper floor of the Plaintiff’s housing.

The Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s housing on May 17, 2008 and resided in it from June 27, 2014. The Defendant resided as the tenant of the Defendant’s housing and purchased the said housing from I, the former owner on March 24, 2015.

B. Around June 2014, the Plaintiff requested construction of water leakage prevention to the Defendant as the water leakage occurred in the Plaintiff’s housing site. Around February 2015, the Defendant executed construction of waterproof amount on the toilet floor of the Defendant’s housing, but the water leakage (hereinafter “water leakage”) occurred thereafter.

C. The Plaintiff continuously demanded the Defendant to perform water leakage prevention works until September 6, 2017. However, the Defendant continued to perform water leakage prevention works five times from 2014 to 2015, and refused the Plaintiff’s demand to perform water leakage prevention works on the ground that water leakage was not generated in the Defendant’s housing.

This Court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser G and the costs of the water leakage and remuneration in this case according to the appraiser H's appraisal result are as follows:

≪감정인 H의 감정결과≫ ☞ 원고 주택 누수원인 가) 현장감정당시 공기압시험 등을 통해 급수배관, 온수배관, 우오수배관의 누수로 발생된 사고는 아닌 것으로 확인되었다. 나) 피고가 주장하는 지붕의 우수가 J호와 E호(이하 ‘피고 주택’)를 통과해서 피고 주택 화장실 방수층 밑의 스라브를 통해 F호(이하 ‘원고 주택’)의 천정으로 누수되는 루트는 이론상 가능할 수는 있으나 실제 발생할 가능성이 매우 적으며, J호의 건물 내부를 확인해 본 결과 누수흔적이 전혀 발견되지 않아 이와 같은 루트로...