logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나58690 (1)
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts (no dispute exists);

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) D, and the Defendant is the owner of the instant apartment E.

(hereinafter referred to as "number of houses")

B. From October 19, 2018 to October 28, 2018, water leakage occurred in toilets, wards, and ceiling on the side of the kitchen.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to pay the plaintiff KRW 600,000 for the cost of removal and installation of toilets, ② the cost of removal and installation of the kitchen stone 1,500,000 for the cost of removal and installation of the kitchen stone 1,50,000 for the construction of the KRW 80,000 for the KRW 4,50,000 for the KRW 1,50,000 for the construction of the ceiling stone and corridor hallway, ④ the floor, 50,00 for the floor, 50,00 for the care of the wall, 650,00 for the waste disposal cost, 70,00 for the waste disposal cost, 400,000 for the construction of the ceiling stone and corridor.

In this regard, the defendant can not be deemed to have caused defects, such as water pipes under subparagraph 5, and there is a possibility of other external causes. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is unjust.

3. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 8, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1-8, and 11, and witness F's testimony.

(1) On October 19, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the year shall be omitted and indicated on a monthly basis”) the lessee found that water from the wall surface of the toilet was removed from the wall of the toilet and found to be known to the Defendant.

② On October 25, 10, at the Defendant’s request, a person who performs pipeline construction, etc. in the name of “G” in the near shopping district in F apartment of this case. The Defendant visited subparagraph (a) and subparagraph (e) to determine that the water leakage of the toilets in Dable toilets was highly likely to be caused by the water leakage of the toilets in E-ho toilets or the low floor waterproof construction works.

Accordingly, the defendant entered into a contract with F to check water pipes and floor waterproof construction works, and the construction works commenced on October 29.

(3) The number of co-owners shall be 26.

arrow