2019Na36171 Compensation

A

B

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-young and Domin-man

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gaso2901093 Decided June 13, 2019

February 5, 2020

April 8, 2020

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be borne by each person;

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of serving a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. The place of appeal;

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from December 5, 2018 to June 13, 2019, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff claimed compensation for property damage and consolation money against the Defendant at the first instance court, and the court of first instance partly accepted the claim for property damage and dismissed the claim for consolation money. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed against the cited portion of the claim for constructive damage, and the Plaintiff appealed against the dismissed portion of the claim for consolation money. Accordingly, this Court’s judgment is limited to the property damage claim).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the owner of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 25th floor Dho Lake (hereinafter referred to as "the case D"), and the defendant is the lessee who resides in the above apartment 26th floor E (hereinafter referred to as "the case E").

B. In the balcony of the above apartment, water can not be used in the balcony because of its cover, and in cases where it is inevitable to use the washing machine or air-conditioning, etc., it is hard to stick the drain pipe to the drain pipe, and in cases where water is drained in the balcony because the drain pipe, such as washing machine, is not used well in the drain pipe, there is a risk of water leakage damage to the apartment of the following floor.

C. On July 3, 2018, the lessee residing in subparagraph D of the instant case discovered the occurrence of water leakage damage (hereinafter referred to as “damage of water leakage in this case”) caused by ice and fung in the ceiling and the wall of the small-scale balcony in the instant sub-paragraph D, by drinking water on the Defendant and the lower floor.

D. On June 22, 2018, the Defendant installed air conditioners in the instant subparagraph E. In the process of confirming the cause of water leakage after the damage to water leakage in the instant subparagraph D, the Defendant was using water, such as laundry machine and air conditioners, without placing them in the drainage outlet, and the Defendant was found to have caused unclaimed water.

E. After doing so, the Defendant left the Kakao Stockholm message to the effect that: (a) no additional water leakage damage has occurred since the Defendant added the above drainage lake to the drainage pipe; (b) the damage from water leakage under the instant subparagraph D was terminated; and (c) around September 6, 2018, the Defendant admitted the Kakao Stockholm message to the effect that the Defendant recognized the lessee under the instant subparagraph (D) “if he puts the drainage lake into the drainage pipe and uses it, no additional water leakage is available.”

F. Meanwhile, at a time similar to the time when water leakage damage in the instant case occurred, a lawsuit was filed against the Defendant and the owner of the instant E (Seoul Central District Court 2018Gaso2615777) due to the occurrence of water leakage damage in the said apartment F, which was filed against the Defendant and the instant owner. On July 23, 2019, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that recognized the Defendant’s negligence in use and rendered a judgment that recognized the repair cost for the Defendant, and the Defendant’s appeal is still pending in the appellate trial (Seoul Central District Court 2019Na46758).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 7-12, 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Recognition of liability

According to the above facts, it can be deemed that the Defendant’s damage to water leakage of the instant subparagraph D occurred due to the Defendant’s mistake in the use by inserting the water tank, air conditioner, etc. in the balcony in the instant case E without placing them in the drainage hole. Thus, the Defendant, the owner of the instant subparagraph D, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant case, for the damage caused by water leakage.

In regard to this, the defendant's damage of water leakage in this case occurred as a result of breaking various sculptures on the upper part of the auxiliary pipe connected to the water tank installed on the side of the balcony of the defendant, and spreading the water and spreading the water time. Since the above water tank falls under the management area of the lessor of this case, the defendant is not liable for damages to the defendant. However, in light of the purport of the statement and the whole pleadings as to the evidence No. 13, it is difficult to conclude that the water leakage damage in this case was caused by the corrosion of the above water tank merely by the statement or image of evidence No. 1 through 5, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that there was no causation between the Defendant’s mistake and water leakage damage in light of the fact that there was about ten-day interval between the time when he/she installed air conditioners (as of June 22, 2018) and the time when water leakage occurred (as of July 3, 2018), but it is difficult to conclude that water leakage occurred at the above time on July 3, 2018 at the time when the resident of the instant case discovered water leakage damage. In light of the background, scale, etc. of the above water leakage damage, it appears that water leakage was accumulated gradually, and that there was a need for a certain period of time until it is discovered to the resident as a result of realizing water leakage damage, such as mycous, and it is difficult to accept the above assertion by the Defendant.

Since the defendant asserts that the water leakage damage of this case occurred due to the water pipe wave of the above apartment apartment G, the above apartment apartment G, the defendant's assertion that the water pipe of the above apartment apartment apartment G was removed on January 2018, the fact that water leakage damage of this case occurred due to the dissolution of water pipe of the above apartment apartment apartment apartment G, but there is no dispute between the parties, but at the time of the execution of the repair work, the repair work seems to have been carried out, the fact that the water leakage damage of this case, which was confirmed on July 3, 2018, was located far away from the water leakage damage of this case, and the defendant's assertion that the water leakage damage of this case, which is the second floor below the above Item, did not suffer any damage, is not justified.

B. Limitation on liability

According to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the initial registration of the above apartment was received on October 15, 1998, and according to this, it is reasonable to view that the above subparagraph D, at the time of water leakage damage of this case, contributed to the occurrence of water leakage damage of this case and the expansion of damage of this case. Thus, it is unreasonable to impose all responsibility on the defendant for damage caused by water leakage of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability for damages to 70% from the perspective of fair apportionment of damage.

3. Scope of liability for damages

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the whole arguments in Gap evidence No. 6, the fact that the cost required to compensate for the above leakage damage is 2,850,000 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,995,00 won (=2,850,000 won x 70%) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from December 5, 2018, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to June 13, 2019, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to whether he/she is liable for performance and the scope thereof, as requested by the plaintiff, from December 5, 2018, to June 13, 2019, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for property damage shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part concerning the claim for property damage among the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate with this conclusion, the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed as they are without merit.

The judges of the presiding judge shall leather

Reinforcement of Judges

Judges Kim Jong-soo