logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.01.24 2016나1227
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) No. 2 and 103 (hereinafter “103”) and the Defendant is the owner of No. 203, the upper floor (hereinafter “203”).

B. The management office of the apartment of this case: (a) destroyed the walls set forth in 203 and partially replaced the pipes set forth in 203 in the set, and paid KRW 50,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,00 for the cost of distribution due to water leakage in the event of damage to the joint library, in order to resolve the first water leakage civil petition (hereinafter referred to as the “first water leakage”); and (b) on January 22, 2015, the management office of the apartment of this case paid 10,000 to the Plaintiff.

However, even at the end of March of the same year, the plaintiff continued to contact with the management office in relation to water leakage, and the same year.

4.2. According to the entry in the evidence No. 9 that the General Facility Company (F) performed remuneration, KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

In addition, the plaintiff made a request to the management office for the investigation of the cause of the damage presumed to have been leakages on the toilets and walls of 103 at the end of February of the same month from the 103th day of February of the same year to the 103th day of the same year, which was caused by the lack of flood control around toiletss of 203. The plaintiff sent a content-certified mail stating the current status of damage and the requirements.

On the other hand, the management office shall have the same effect.

4. 15. Around April 15, 2014, the phrase “. 15.” stated on the left-hand side of the technical dog attached to the evidence No. 11 attached to the evidence No. 11 appears to be a clerical error in light of the date set at the lower end of the same document, the disbursement resolution attached thereto, and the certificate of transaction confirmation as “. 15. 201. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 203. 203. 203. 103. 203. 203.

arrow