1. The defendant assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor joining the defendant.

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following determination as to the matters asserted by the Defendant’s Intervenor, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. On November 15, 2012, the Defendant Intervenor notified the Defendant that KRW 1,122,00 among the KRW 20,095,000 calculated under the name of the floor waterproof cost and the wall waterproof cost to prevent water leakage of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction cost”) was allocated to the Defendant Intervenor, and thus, the said money was paid by November 30 of the same month.

However, since the water leakage of the building of this case is not a part of rooftops, but a part of the 7th floor occupied by the plaintiffs, the construction cost is borne by the plaintiffs, and the defendant has no obligation to pay it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant recognized the obligation to pay the instant construction cost on the premise that the ownership of the instant building was incurred in the co-ownership, and then claimed some of the amount to the Defendant’s Intervenor. The Defendant’s above claim is unreasonable.

(2) In light of the judgment, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the leakage of the instant building occurred in the section of exclusive ownership, not the joint ownership portion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant assistant intervenor's assertion that the water of the building of this case was generated in the section for exclusive use is without merit.

3. The plaintiff A's claim for the return of the substitute payment of the construction cost of this case must be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate with this conclusion, and the appeal by the defendant's assistant intervenor is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.