(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.05.13 2015가단3309

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.05.13 2015가단3309

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jinju-si C Apartment No. 208 (hereinafter “208”), and the Defendant is the owner of the same apartment No. 308 (hereinafter “308”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant: (a) performed remodeling works under Article 308 of the Defendant’s ownership; (b) performed the replacement of toilets; (c) due to the waterproof defects of the said bathing tank replacement works, the Plaintiff’s assertion reached a warning that the Defendant was unable to live a normal life, such as funging water coming from the Defendant’s 208 dwelling space, front beer, front beer, and back beer than 208, which was owned by the Plaintiff, on June 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the waterproof defects of the said bathing tank replacing construction. The specific amount of the damages is KRW 1,683,00, KRW 20,000, KRW 200,000, and KRW 4,750,000 ( KRW 950,000 per month x 5 months) total of the rental proceeds not accrued due to water leakage.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim for determination is premised on the fact that the number of water leakages under 208 was due to the Defendant’s fault of waterproofing while performing a replacement work for toilets 308.

According to Gap evidence 3-1 to 7's video and this court's on-site inspection, it can be recognized that ice had been achieved due to water leakage in the dwelling space of 208, that white pet, which had been combined with the front bend of 208, left a gold, and that ice had been advanced on a white pet, which had been combined with the rear bend of 208, 208. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the ground for water leakage of 208 is attributable to the waterproof defects of the toilet bath tank replacement construction of 308, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the appraiser D's appraisal results, ① there is no trace of leakage in upper part of the bath room No. 208 claims by the Plaintiff, and ②.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.04.02 2014가단7290

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.05.12 2013가단13695

-대구지방법원 2018.05.09 2017나10631

-울산지방법원 2018.06.05 2017가단14818

-광주지방법원 2020.11.27 2019나67653