1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The fact that there is no dispute with him/her;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates an indoor golf range (hereinafter “ golf range”) under the trade name of “C” on the first floor of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and Defendant B is a management body of the said commercial building; Defendant B is a management body of the said commercial building; Defendant BS is a management body entrusted by Defendant B’s management body.

B. On July 4, 2016, a case occurred in which golf banks, etc. were flooded on the floor of rainwater, which flows into a golf practice range and flows into the water.

(hereinafter referred to as “indeption case”). 2. The parties’ assertion

A. As the superior officer, who was established on the ground of the Plaintiff’s alleged commercial building, has laid down the drain pipe from the ground on the rooftop to the lower end of the commercial building without getting out of the pipe due to fall leaves, etc.

The place is a place where there has been a ground ventilation leading to the golf driving range, and the rainwater, which has turned into the underground septic tank through a tample.

As rainwater flows out into a septic tank together with garbage, flood incidents have occurred as rainwater flows out into a golf practice range.

Although the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to perform excellent repair works, etc., a flood incident occurred due to the Defendants’ implied disregarding the Plaintiff’s demand. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay each Plaintiff damages for KRW 24,014,00 (i.e., other stone construction works, scarfs construction, gambs construction, gambs construction, exhaustr construction, exhaustr construction, exhaustr construction, repair of tea, etc., construction costs, malodor removal costs, customers’ compensation for golf banks)

B. A flood incident occurs due to the phenomenon of land erosion caused by the aging of a commercial building, not by flood, because the excellent assertion by the defendants has been prevented.

The defendants tried to replace the commercial building news block with the possibility of flood, etc., but they oppose the plaintiff.