beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,675,520 as well as 5% per annum from September 17, 2014 to January 28, 2016, and the next day.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, from August 2005, leased and possessed 101 unit C Apartment-si, Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 601 unit D.
With respect to the instant apartment 701, the registration of transfer of E’s ownership was completed on February 19, 2014, and the Defendant, as the denial of E, occupied the said 701 from that time.
Around 13:00 on July 31, 2014, the Defendant, at around 13:00, operated a washing machine installed in the front balcony of the instant apartment building 701, went out, and returned to 19:0 on the same day.
Among them, the water level of the above balcony floor was cut down, and the living room, bedroom, etc. in the above 701 was flooded, and there was a water leakage that the water was lowered through the living room, room, etc. in the above apartment 601.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” From July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff discovered that from around July 28, 2014, the water leakage under the above 601 occurred and that the water leakage under the above 601 occurred on August 3, 2014. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to compensate for the damages arising therefrom, but the Defendant did not comply with the request.
[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraiser F's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The evidence revealed prior to the occurrence of liability for damages can be found as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the time of moving into the instant apartment site 701 in February 2014, installed a different day on the existing floor of the balcony and additionally set up another day to lower than 50-70 meters to below 20 meters; (b) the date of the instant accident, the Defendant operated the washing machine and opened out the balcony; (c) there was a waterproof floor in the balcony 701, but there was no waterproof floor in the balcony 701, but there was no waterproof floor; (d) the sewage pipe was constructed with a size similar to that of the ordinary apartment with 75 meters; and (e) the fact that the same accident did not occur after the instant accident.
In light of this, we examine.