1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 5,934,420 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant (Appointed Party) among the judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from January 27, 2015.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 13,781,400 for actual container work expenses, ② repair expenses of KRW 13,781,400 for the repair of defects, ③ KRW 72,00,000 for the lost rent. Among them, the first instance court dismissed the claim, and ② and ③ The claim partially accepted the claim.

The plaintiff appealed against the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance, and since the defendant et al. appealed against the whole part of the judgment of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against which the plaintiff and the defendant

2. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part on "1. Recognizing facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the water leakage generated from No. 201 of the instant building due to the No. 301 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant water leakage”).

(2) Since the Defendant et al. jointly incurred damages to the Plaintiff, the Defendant et al. is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff, namely, the painting, decoration, and full glass repair cost of the instant building No. 201, and the rent that could not be acquired due to the failure to lease the instant building No. 201.2) The gist of the Defendant et al.’s assertion is due to external factors, and the instant water leakage amount was not generated by subparagraph 301 of the instant building, and thus, the Defendant et al.

B. 1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, i.e., the fact that the water leakage in this case is presumed to have been caused by the leakage of living sewage pipes and heating pipes buried on the floor chains of the building 301, and ② the water leakage and form of the building 201 in Ycheon-si, deeming that there is almost little change in the water leakage and form of the building in this case.