1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 6,066,381, and KRW 2,021,950 and each of the above costs against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A.

Basic Facts

On March 13, 2003, the Plaintiffs purchased 1/2 shares of each of the Plaintiff’s D major 850 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”) and E non-party members, a Class I neighborhood living facility of the third floor of the ground reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 23, 2003.

On April 25, 1991, G, H, I, and J with respect to the land adjoining to the plaintiffs 1,312.3 square meters (hereinafter "the defendant's land"), the transfer registration of ownership of 1/4 square meters in the name of G, H, I, and J, respectively.

around 1993, Ctel, which is a 15th floor building of reinforced concrete structure, was newly built on the ground of the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”), and the site registration on the Defendant’s land was completed on November 26, 1993, and the Defendant’s building was registered as a sectionally owned building around November 26, 1993.

The defendant is a management body comprised of sectional owners of the defendant building.

On October 13, 2014, from around 16:30 to 16:39, a fire occurred in the vicinity of the guard room of the Defendant building site located in the lower lower part of the lower building site (hereinafter “instant fire”). One fire was destroyed by a tent and a fence for materials storage to be moved to the tent owned by the Plaintiff on the adjoining land, and 12 fire extinguisherss owned by the Plaintiff was used during the fire extinguishment process.

The fire of this case was found in the power source room of the defendant's building located on the left side of the site of the defendant's building, and it was presumed that the electric wires have been damaged, and the electric wires have been damaged, so it was left alone for a long time.

[Reasons for recognition] According to the above fact-finding, Gap 1-1, 1-2, 2, 3, and 8's respective statements and the entire purport of the pleadings, the fire of this case occurred due to defects in the installation or preservation of electric wires of the defendant's office.