1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are co-owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet. On September 1987, co-owners of the above real estate, including the plaintiff and the defendant, established the "Rules on the Classification of Buildings and the Right to Use Site (ownership)" and decided that the plaintiff used the second floor of the above real estate (hereinafter "the plaintiff's building of this case") and the defendant used the third floor (hereinafter "the defendant's building of this case").

B. Around 2008, the Defendant implemented a construction project to change the instant Defendant’s building from a neighborhood living facility to a studio. After the construction, water leakage was proceeding and deepened in the ceiling of the instant Plaintiff’s building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to use and profit from the Plaintiff’s building since 2010.

C. The appraiser C of the Suwon District Court case No. 2012Kadan18151, which claimed damages equivalent to the rent for a different period of time from the instant case, presented the appraisal result to the effect that “the occurrence of cumulative water was caused by the Defendant’s installation of three room rooms, including toilets and kitchens, while performing the said construction, to increase the load on the floor and to increase the load below the floor, and the failure of the floor and the wall-proof floors of toilets and kitchens was also caused by a concrete slab.” The appraiser D of the instant case, the appellate court, Suwon District Court No. 2013Na15514, which was the appellate court of the instant case, presented the appraisal result to the effect that “the occurrence of cumulative water was caused by the failure of the construction of the kitchen and toilet installed through the Defendant’s construction and the damage to the waterproof layer.”

On the other hand, as in the instant case, the Defendant asserted that “the above concrete slver heat was generated by the Plaintiff’s slven slven construction” in the above cases, but all of the said appraisers determined that it is difficult to see it.”

Since January 1, 2012, the rent for the Plaintiff’s building of this case is KRW 843,00 per month.

recognized.