beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun Carryover 102 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned 102”), and the Defendant is the owner of the same Ba 202 (hereinafter “Defendant-owned 202”).
B. From June 201, around the day of 201, ice and polluted caused water leakage on the ceiling, wall, etc. owned by the Plaintiff.
C. Accordingly, on December 21, 201, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “a request for repair is made because the Plaintiff suffered damage due to overcharge” on three occasions on May 30, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion damages the Plaintiff’s house site due to water leakage generated from the toilet distribution machine 202 owned by the Defendant, the Defendant, as the owner of the structure, is liable to compensate for the total amount of KRW 26,98,130, the amount equivalent to the repair cost incurred by the Plaintiff due to a defect in the preservation of the structure, and KRW 102, the amount equivalent to the rent for 39 months incurred from December 30, 201 to March 1, 2015, incurred from the lease of KRW 19,50,000 for 39 months.
B. On June 201, 201, the fact that ice and polluted occurred due to water leakage in the ceiling, walls, etc. owned by the Plaintiff is as seen earlier, and according to the result of appraisal by the party appraiser E, the Defendant’s repair work on the front floor of the toilet owned by the Defendant around July 2012 can be acknowledged.
However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned basic facts, the evidence mentioned above, the images of Eul evidence 5-2 and 3, the testimony of the witness E at the trial, i.e., ① structural problems in the hot water distribution period installed in the toilets under 202 owned by the defendant, and the Defendant’s repair work on the front floor of the toilet.