1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In addition to adding the following judgments to the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

C. The defendant's assertion 1) asserts that the appraisal result of the appraiser F of the first instance trial is based on the appraisal of the causes of water leakage, and that depreciation is not considered in calculating remuneration costs. Thus, the appraiser's appraisal result cannot be believed. However, the appraiser's appraisal result should be respected unless the appraisal method violates the empirical rule or is unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012). According to the appraisal result of the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the appraiser F appraised the causes of water leakage through a field survey and a water leakage test based on the land survey, and taking into account the recovery and repair methods based on the field survey, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff's appraisal result was reasonable by applying the construction standard table of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, price information of an institution authorized by the Government under the Statistics Act, price (i.e., the market price) price public notice by the approval authority under the Statistics Act, etc., and thus, the defendant's assertion that the above appraisal result was unreasonable or reasonable.

However, considering that the building on which water leakage in this case occurred is an apartment, the defendant shall be the lessee in 305.