logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.23 2019나31336 (1)
기타
Text

The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of multi-household 2 above ground 1 in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) No. E (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant is the owner of the first floor F (hereinafter “F”).

The building of this case is a old-age building approved on September 29, 1986.

B. E is continuously running water, and there is a considerable quantity of water in the floor of the suspender, and the wall abutting on the underground and the outer part of the indoor is very serious pollution by mycois, and the damp state of the lower part of the floor board is very poor, and malodor is very poor and very poor to the extent that people’s residence or use is substantially impossible by spreading malodor to the living room and the main room and the room with the center of the toilet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 8, Eul evidence No. 4 and images, the result of the appraisal by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s leakage of the instant case occurred due to a defect in the installation and preservation of the Defendant’s Fho Lake.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for totaling KRW 5,00,000,000 for repair costs and restoration costs, KRW 37,000,00 for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff, and KRW 18,000 for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable, since the water leakage of this case occurred due to the defect in Hho Lake wastewater pipes or the defect in E itself, and there is no defect in the installation and preservation of F, which is the Defendant’s ownership.

3. Determination

A. 1) According to the result of the first instance judgment’s appraisal, the following facts may be acknowledged. ① The water leakage of this case is presumed to have been mainly caused by the deterioration of the building of this case. ② (B) The toilet defect E is one of the causes of the water leakage of this case.

In particular, the E-ho toilets are higher than 40cc dwelling space and room.

arrow