1. An appeal against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the incidental appeal against the principal lawsuit by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the Plaintiff’s assertion that the occurrence of damages equivalent to the unpaid heating costs is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff's assertion that unpaid heating costs should be borne by the defendant ultimately is based on the defendant's non-performance of repair obligation, which causes property damage equivalent to unpaid heating costs to the plaintiff.

However, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff was provided with heating services while residing in 105 of the instant C Apartment No. 105, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the consideration. However, there is only room to claim for damages to the Defendant due to insufficient heating effects due to the deterioration of heating facilities, etc. (the amount of consolation money, etc. to recover expenses incurred in order to normalize insufficient heating effects or mental damage).

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the burden of heating costs per se constitutes property damage caused by the Defendant’s nonperformance of the repair obligation is difficult to accept, and there is no proof of facts supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

All appeals against the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and counterclaim and incidental appeals against the defendant's principal lawsuit are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.