1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

The plaintiff is the owner of the above house that acquired C Apartment D (hereinafter referred to as "D") on October 30, 2001, and the defendant is the owner of the above apartment E (hereinafter referred to as "E") on July 7, 1998, who acquired the above apartment E (hereinafter referred to as "E").

On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to check the water leakage location under subparagraph E and to take measures accordingly, upon occurrence of a phenomenon where water falls from the ceiling of the living room and where remote areas are contaminated (hereinafter “instant water”).

Since then, the defendant requested a water detection business to confirm the fact that water leakage has occurred in the pipelines buried in the toilet walls, and after the defendant replaced the hot water pipe, there was no additional water leakage in the spring of Category D.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 1 (including the value number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the result of the first instance court’s commission of appraisal to appraiser F by the appraiser of the first instance court, according to the overall purport of the pleading, since damage to the plaintiff’s title D occurred due to the leakage of this case occurred under the defendant’s title E, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the leakage of this case.

In recognition of the scope of compensation for damage to property: 4,234,00 won (the cost of restoring property damage to the scope of compensation for damage): 4,234,00 won (the cost of removing and re-afusing each kind of toilet, each kind of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8, and each kind of appraisal Nos. 3, 4, and 8, the result of the first instance court’s appraisal commission to the appraiser F of the first instance court, the defendant’s judgment as to the whole purport of the pleadings cannot be ruled out, but the possibility of phenomenon due to repeated association over a long period of time is merely part of the living room, and the damage from the water leakage of this case is merely part of the living room and the main room, excluding each kind of toilet toilet.