1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,50,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 10, 2018 to May 31, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates D (hereinafter “instant main points”) on the 1st underground floor in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and the Defendant is a person who operates the “E” on the 1st floor of the same building.

B. Around July 2017, the Defendant installed air conditioners on the surface of the above building, and the air conditioners, which flows into the air conditioners by the air conditioners, went away from the engine of the floor exchange to the air conditioners of this case, and turned down the air conditioners installed at the main points of this case through the engine of the floor exchange.

C. On July 18, 2017, water leakage occurred in the second place among the main points of this case, and around June 20, 2018, water leakage occurred in the third place.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, video, witness F's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The fact that water leakage occurred as the water drained water flows out of the air conditioners installed by the Defendant flows out of the air conditioners of this case into the river department of this case is as seen earlier. This is due to an error by the Defendant’s failure to remove the drain outlet out of the oil conditioners or not toward the guns of air conditioners in the process of installing the air conditioners, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the above water can not be viewed as being caused by the defendant's negligence, considering the fact that the floor ventilation hole is open, there is a possibility that rainwater or external flowing water flows, and that water leakage occurred in the opposite part of the building of this case, and the building itself is deteriorated.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to reverse the above facts solely based on the circumstances cited by the Defendant, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(1) Around July 2017, the first leakage occurred.