beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Location B lending 102, and the Defendant is an aggregate building that consists of 18 households, and is responsible for managing the above B lending’s public facilities.
However, the Defendant, as a manager of an external sewage hole, should manage the sewage hole so as not to prevent sewage out of its surrounding area by neglecting it. However, at around August 2011, the Defendant neglected to manage it as a manager of the external sewage hole, the drainage facilities of the above sewage hole were prevented due to the fallen leaves into the sewage hole, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the aforementioned amount, since there were damages equivalent to KRW 19 million,00,000,000, such as the damage of the household and household goods owned by the Plaintiff to the flooded rainwater.
2. Therefore, according to the records of evidence Nos. 5 and 7 as to whether a building owned by the Plaintiff was flooded and damaged by the Defendant’s neglect of the management of external sewage holes, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) around July 26, 201: (b) around July 26, 201, as to whether the sewage hole connected between the above BB loan Nos. 102 and 101 was flooded and resided in the Plaintiff; (c) but it is insufficient to recognize such inundation by only the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 4, 6, 8 through 11 (including the provisional number) as to whether such inundation occurred due to the Defendant’s neglect of the management of external sewage hole, and whether such inundation caused damage to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
In addition, the Plaintiff is also pursuing the Defendant’s default liability, but there is no evidence to deem that there exists any claim and obligation relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the above assertion based on the premise of its existence is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.