1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering monetary payment, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant, ② a construction performance claim, ③ an indirect compulsory performance claim, and the first instance court accepted part of the claim for damages, ② a part of the claim for damages, ② a part of the claim for construction performance, and ③ a judgment dismissing the part of the claim for indirect compulsory performance.

In this regard, only the plaintiff filed an appeal, extended the part of the claim for damages in this court, withdrawn the part of the claim for indirect compulsory performance, and excluded the part of the claim for the performance of construction works that won in the first instance.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part against the plaintiff among the claim for damages and the part of the claim expanded by this court, and the part of the claim for construction performance is transferred to this court but is not subject to adjudication.

2. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reasoning of the judgment on the claim for damages is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

From 5th to 6th 2th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

Since the Plaintiff suffered physical and mental damages due to the leakage of the Defendant apartment complex, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages to its original state of KRW 31,917,808, and KRW 1,800,000 (i.e., KRW 150,00 per day x 12 days), KRW 20,717,800, and delay damages for the aforementioned construction period. From the first instance judgment, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 53,717,800, and the damages for delay for delay. From the 7th judgment of the first instance judgment, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages up to 9th to

“B. 1 Scope of Loss.” The evidence, which was incurred prior to the cost of restoration to the original state, and the evidence of Gap Nos. 40, 41, 43 through 59 (including the number of branches) respectively.