beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,500,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from July 24, 2014 to January 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is residing in Suwon-si, Suwon-si C apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") 101 Dong 406, and the defendant is the owner of the apartment of this case 101 Dong 506.
B. From April 2014, water leakage occurred in the instant apartment Nos. 101 Dong 506, the lower floor, and the instant apartment Nos. 101, 406, the lower floor, caused damage, such as ice and funging.
C. From April 2014, the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant stop water leakage to the Defendant several times. From July 22, 2014, the Defendant performed a waterproof construction on the instant apartment site 101-dong 406, and thereafter, there was no damage from water leakage on the instant apartment site 101-dong 406.
[Basis] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 2-1 through 4, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7, evidence No. 9-1 through 3, evidence No. 10-3 through 6, evidence No. 10-1, evidence No. 3-2, each entry or video No. 3-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered damage, such as myi fung occurring in the small room of 101 Dong 406 of the apartment of this case owned by the defendant due to the water leakage of 101 Dong 506 of the apartment of this case, which he occupied by the defendant, so the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages of KRW 20,000,000 as property damage, as compensation for directors' and brokerage fees, and for mental suffering.
B. 1) We examine the judgment on the part of the claim for property damage, and there is no evidence to find that the director's expenses and brokerage fees alleged by the Plaintiff were losses in proximate causal relation with the leakage of 101 and 506 apartment buildings of this case, and that the Plaintiff was actually a director, this part of the claim is without merit. 2) According to the above fact of recognition as to the claim for consolation money, according to the above fact of recognition, this part of the claim is without merit.