1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s negligence opened the air inhale dam installed in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and C, 207, which was owned by the Defendant, to open the air inhaled dam, and caused water leakage by which water facilities were installed. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff sought compensation on the ground that the Plaintiff caused damage to the Plaintiff, as the water leakage flows out to the Plaintiff’s office ceiling, etc., the water leakaged below the Plaintiff’s office ceiling, which was below the Plaintiff’s floor, by causing damage to the Plaintiff, including the multi-tamper, croper, advertising electric complex, and rollr map’s replacement costs, and the construction costs of 4,982,60 won in full. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above air inhale dam was opened by the Defendant’s negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Plaintiff

B. The Plaintiff in charge of structure refers to the person who is responsible for repairing and managing the structure in order to prevent various accidents that may arise due to defects in the construction or preservation of the structure, since the water leakage occurred as above due to defects in the preservation of the air inhaler, the Defendant, who is the possessor, shall be liable to compensate the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor of the structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to the person who is responsible for repairing and managing the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da386, Apr. 21, 200). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have the authority and responsibility for repairing and managing the said air inhaler to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion does not need to further examine the remainder

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.