2019 grouped 25857 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

A

Law Firm Filiwon, Attorneys Choi Jung-su, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

B

May 7, 2020

June 4, 2020

1. In relation to the water leakage accident occurred in Young-si, Young-gu, Young-si, Young-si, G apartment D on December 30, 2018, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant does not exist exceeding KRW 1,430,000.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2018, around 10:00, the Plaintiff’s apartment, damaged the hot water pipes buried on the front floor of the Heungdong-gu C apartment D, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, An apartment, thereby causing damage to the Defendant’s apartment, such as the main bank of the Heungdong-gu C apartment E, and the living room ceiling (hereinafter “instant water accident”).

B. G running “F” around April 1, 2019, at the request of the Plaintiff, performed the design construction of the Defendant’s main room and living room.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,430,000 to G the Defendant’s main room and the Defendant’s place of living room construction costs.

D. The Plaintiff’s spouse H joined the “J” corporation on February 24, 2009, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the family life liability agreement guaranteeing the above insurance contract, I paid H the insurance amount of KRW 2,010,000 due to the instant water leakage incident (=600,000 + the cost of preventing damage + the amount of KRW 1,430,000 for the Defendant - self-payment of KRW 20,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 through 6 (including each branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant water leakage incident with the Plaintiff’s implied agreement on the payment of the cost of the construction of the ship. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,430,00 for the cost of the construction of the ship. As such, there is no liability for damages related to the water leakage incident between the Plaintiff and the Defendant exceeding the above KRW 1,430,00.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The costs of the construction works executed by the Plaintiff do not exceed KRW 1,430,000, and the damages caused by the reconstruction of defects, the replacement of a tent stone table, the breakdown of a tent in a living room, the refluoring of a main floor, the refluoring of a kitchen, the refluoring of a kitchen decoration, the refluoring of a kitchen lighting, and the occurrence of myco.

C. Determination

In relation to the water leakage accident of this case, the Defendant’s main stream construction works, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,430,00 for the aforementioned water distribution work costs as seen earlier, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the ground for recognition as seen earlier: (i) G did not recommend the replacement of tin, etc. as it did not confirm any particular damage inside the ceiling at the time of the repair work with the confirmation of damaged parts; (ii) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s insurance company proposed an internal crym sense but rejected it; and (iii) the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff did not want to have an appraisal by attending the first date for pleading, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) it is insufficient to acknowledge that the damage alleged by the Defendant was caused by the water leakage accident of this case; and (b) G did not have any evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ginok-hee