1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,706,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 6, 2013 to April 14, 2015.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 6, entry of evidence 8 and 9, C's witness's partial testimony, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On October 30, 2007, the Plaintiff is an occupant who has resided in the instant apartment after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) due to sale and purchase, and the Defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives comprised of occupants’ representatives for the management of B apartment including the instant apartment.

B. From March 2008, the rooftop floor, which is the upper part of the apartment of this case, was ruptured on the rooftop floor of this case, the apartment of this case was leakageed as the inner part of the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that C, the representative of the defendant at that time, who was a water leakage phenomenon in the apartment of this case, to perform a waterproof construction work on the rooftop part, but was not implemented.

C. As a result of the leakage phenomenon of the instant apartment, Fungi in the remote area, etc. in the inside part of the instant apartment, and the floor was bruised, the Plaintiff directly performed a rooftop waterproof construction between October 17, 2013 and October 21, 2013, and paid KRW 3,106,00 to the construction business operator at its own expense.

Of the inside part of the apartment of this case, the cost of replacing the remote area and the stalst floor is 1.6 million won.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant had a duty to properly manage the rooftop, which is a common part of B apartment, but failed to properly manage the leakage of the rooftop. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 4,706,00 in total of the waterproof construction cost of the rooftop part, KRW 3,106,000, and KRW 1.6 million in the apartment inside the apartment of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the damages. 2) The plaintiff suffered heavy stress due to defects caused by the leakage of the apartment of this case from March 208.