1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The basic facts of the claim ① The plaintiff is the owner of C Apartment 101 Dong 101, and the defendant is the owner of the above-story 201, and the defendant is the owner of the above-story 201, and ② around September 2016, water leakage occurred in the hot water pipe set forth in the above-mentioned 201, and the following stories occurred due to the occurrence of defects, such as drinking water and fung gro in the small-scale kitchen 101, and the fact that 4,90,00 won is required for objective costs to repair the defect is not disputed between the parties, or that the entries or images set forth in the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 5 and 8 are recognized by the overall purport of the appraisal and pleading of the appraiser D of the first instance trial, and each entry in the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2 and 7, which appears to be partly contrary thereto, shall not interfere with the recognition as above.

2. (1) According to the above facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 17, 2016 to July 6, 2017, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant as requested by the Plaintiff, to the extent that the Defendant is liable for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 1.5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of the judgment of the first instance, which is the day when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant as requested by the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff alleged that he spent 8.6 million won in excess of the above recognized amount as expenses for repairing defects. However, even based on all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In addition, the defendant also argued that the above costs for repairing defects are excessive, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

(iii).