1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 13, 2015 to March 7, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the second floor building located in Busan Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant shares the two-story building located above the retaining wall located above D and the building of this case (hereinafter “Defendant building”) adjacent to the retaining wall.

(Co-ownership 2/3, D's co-ownership 1/3).

From November 2014, water leakage occurred from the septic tank pipes buried underground in the Defendant’s building, and sewage flows out along with malodor as the instant building located below the retaining wall.

(hereinafter referred to as "the water leakage accident of this case") . [Grounds for recognition] . Each description and image of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 6 (including paper numbers), the result of the court's entrustment of water leakage appraisal to appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, since water leakage accidents of this case occurred due to defects in the construction and preservation of the purification tank of the defendant building, the defendant, the co-owner of the defendant building, is liable to compensate all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to defects in the construction and preservation of the structure.

(The defendant asserts that he is responsible only for 2/3 out of the total amount of damages since he is only the right holder of 2/3 of the defendant's building. However, as in this case, the co-owner of the building is not jointly and severally liable for damages to a third party due to water leakage of septic tanks, so his responsibility is not limited to the ratio of shares).

According to the evidence revealed earlier, the repair cost for the building of this case caused by water leakage accident of this case is acknowledged as follows: ① 9,582,358, ② the repair cost for the interior bank of the first floor (the inner floor and the wall of the e-mailed bank) and ② the 7,663,793, including the repair cost for the boundary fence and the outer wall of the e-mail (the e-mailed floor and the outer wall of the e-mailed bank, the south side).

However, in the calculation of the above repair cost, depreciation following the use training of the building of this case did not occur.

When property owned by a tort has been damaged.