1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Carryover 202 (hereinafter “instant housing”), and the Defendant operates the construction company with the trade name “E” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

B. Around May 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) replaced the two sides due to water leakage in the bathing room of the instant housing; and (b) requested the Defendant of the instant housing to surrender the entire floor below the instant housing; and (c) paid KRW 350,000 as the construction price.

C. After the occurrence of water leakage again (hereinafter “the first water leakage”), the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to perform the entire bathing room construction (hereinafter “the first construction”) on June 2015, and paid KRW 750,000 as the construction cost, and the Defendant carried out construction accordingly.

After the Defendant’s primary construction work, a water leakage again (hereinafter “the second water leakage”) occurred on August 2015, and the Plaintiff requested repair (hereinafter “the second construction”) to the Defendant. The Plaintiff paid KRW 600,000 as the construction cost (i.e., the cumulative detection cost of KRW 100,000,000 below the KRW 2.50,000 below the KRW 2.50,000), and the Defendant paid the second construction work.

E. After the Defendant’s secondary construction, the water leakage again occurred (hereinafter “third water leakage”) on April 2016, and the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff rejected a request for repair and verified the cause of water leakage through another company, and thus became revealed to be the heat of water pipe PVC pipes. The Plaintiff requested the said company to perform water leakage construction (hereinafter “third-party construction”) and paid KRW 400,000,000 to the water pipe construction cost, and KRW 280,000,000 from the lower floor distribution.

F. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Consumer Protection Board for damages, such as repair costs due to the recurrence of water leakages after the bathing work for the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The party's assertion 1 Plaintiff 2 demanded the Defendant to set AS, but the structure of the building.