beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. If there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4 and Gap evidence Nos. 2 is added to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is the owner of Seogu Seo-gu 11 and 305, and the plaintiff is the owner of the above C apartment Nos. 11 and 205, the next floor, and due to the leakage of pipelines for the apartment owned by the defendant, the fact that water leakage has occurred in the living room or bank room of the apartment owned by the plaintiff on February 2014 (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
C. Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that the apartment of this case is a old building newly constructed in around 1980 and deemed to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 70% since it is not appropriate in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, such as fair apportionment of damages.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 5-3, the Plaintiff may acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,245,000 in total, including the cost of water leakage repair on February 20, 2014 due to the instant accident, KRW 250,000, 250,000, 230,000, 640,000, 640,000, and 95,000,000,000, in total, due to the instant accident.
The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident incurred KRW 500,00,00 for the cost of replacing windows on March 25, 2015, and KRW 220,00 for the exhausting cost. However, each of the entries in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence No. 7-1 and 2 is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff paid the said additional cost due to the instant accident, and otherwise, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff paid the said additional cost.