beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,226,865 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 3, 2014 to January 28, 2016, and the next day.
Reasons
1. On August 31, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to C Apartment 101 dong (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 601, Jinju-si, and thereafter leased D the above 601 unit from around that time.
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”). D discovered that from July 28, 2014, the water leakage of the foregoing 601 occurred from August 3, 2014, and the Defendant claimed compensation for damages to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not comply with the request.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), 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, the defendant's above 701.