2012 Gaz. 180450 Baz. 2010

Yang-○

Seocho-gu Seoul

Attorney Lee Jae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Dok-won

○○ apartment council of occupants' representatives

Seocho-gu Seoul

Representative Council Chairperson* *

Law Firm Yu-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-chul

November 27, 2012

December 5, 2012

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11, 786, 250 won with 5% interest per annum from July 25, 2012 to December 5, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder two-thirds by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant’s KRW 26,572,500 and its service date of a copy of the instant complaint to the Plaintiff

C. The decision to pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3:

A. The plaintiff is the occupant of Seocho-gu Seoul** 4 Dong*** * ○○ apartment, ○○ apartment, 403, one parcel of land.

B. On April 25, 2012: around 30, around 403, the following day from the beginning of water falling near the ceiling, etc. of a room located in the north-dong, the following day: 06: around 00, there was an occurrence of a water falling from the rest of the living room, a ceiling located in the south-dong, an inner river, or a kitchen (hereinafter referred to as “accident”).

C. On April 25, 2012, around 2012, it was confirmed that the employee of the apartment management office opened the upper part of the top 403 Southwest Hand rail (referring to beera or balcony) in order to grasp the causes of abortion, and that the inside of the excellent pipe inside the ceiling part (referring to the nearest to the floor of No. 503, the above floor) of the upper part of the ceiling (hereinafter referred to as the “the excellent part of this case”) was in a state where rainwater was not lowered due to electric wires, stock farms, or other foreign substances.

D. Meanwhile, the provisions on the part of the management rules for ○ apartment and the scope of the section for common use are as stated in the management rules in attached Table 1.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination as to the cause of the instant accident

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., evidence No. 7 No. 7 and evidence No. 1 through No. 70, comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident is recognized as an accident where a large quantity of rainwater, which is high in that part of the instant case, has not been drained in the situation where the excellent part of the instant case was obstructed by a foreign substance, and where it appears that there is no reasonable route to allow water to flow out, except for the excellent part of the instant case.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the route of the instant substance flow cannot be accepted in view of the fact that “this is the material required for the cable connection work, and that the ordinary residents are the materials required for the cable, and that the air carrier is also installing the cable, etc. around the entrance of the excellent pipe installed on the rooftop, in the situation where a cover covering a large volume of foreign substance is installed at the entrance of the excellent pipe installed on the rooftop. In general, it is not easy for considerable volume of secondary substance such as a cable, a stock farm, etc., to be flowed through the entrance of the roof, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the route of the instant substance flow.

B. Grounds for liability

The plaintiff asserts that the part of the present good is the common use area and the part of the present good manager's management negligence in the management negligence of the management authority, the defendant asserts that (1) the part of the present good manager is not the common use area, and (2) the defendant has no obligation to manage the part of the present good manager, and (3) the accident of this case occurred in the course of the rail remodeling of 503, the above floor, and that there is no causation with the defendant's breach of management duty.

First, we examine (1) the point of view as to the point of (1). The superior officer of this case performs the function of draining rainwater, which is away from the ○ Dong-dong rooftop, into the underground drainage pipe, and therefore, in principle, it corresponds to incidental facilities related to drainage. Of course, ① passing through the balcony part that can be regarded as the exclusive use part of each household, ② can be used for the purpose of draining water used in each household balcony, but ① only passing through the exclusive use part due to structural needs, etc., and each household occupant is not able to damage or alter without permission, and ② The main role of this case is clearly the drainage of the rooftop rainwater and the use in each household is merely a mere additional role. Accordingly, the superior officer of this case does not regard it as belonging to the exclusive use part of each household. Accordingly, the superior part of this case also constitutes the common use part.

Next, we examine (2) the point of view. Although an occupant of an individual household passes through his exclusive use part, it cannot be altered or damaged without permission by the superior officer. This is because it may prejudice public interest, such as the drainage of rainwater, which is the inherent function of the superior officer. On the other hand, the management authority may confirm whether rainwater flowing from the rooftop passes smoothly to the underground drainage pipe or not by a simple inspection method without the cooperation of the individual occupant. In addition, in a case where it appears that the passage through the underground drainage pipe is not smooth in the course of the inspection, it is sufficiently possible to enter an individual exclusive use part and to check the common use area passing through it, and rather, it belongs to the duties to be carried out.

It is recognized that the inspection, etc. of the leakage of urban gas installed in the exclusive use portion is carried out without any particular problem. It is also true that the burden of the management entity is increased in terms of time and cost, such as the propagation of the procedure for seeking the consent of the occupant of the exclusive use portion, and the burden is ultimately transferred to the occupant, but the management entity that should give priority to the tenant's common interests is not a problem that can escape from the outside. Accordingly, the defendant, the management entity, is recognized to have

Finally, regarding (3) the point of view is as follows. Since the course of inflow of foreign substance, which is the cause of blocking the part of the present case, is not clear, the occupant of 503, the upper floor, as alleged by the Defendant, is likely to be responsible for the inflow of the present substance. However, even if the Defendant’s assertion is premised on the Defendant’s assertion, it is evident that the Defendant could sufficiently prevent the instant accident or prevent the expansion of damage if it properly performed the management obligation of the present superior officials recognized in the foregoing (2). Accordingly, proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s breach of management obligation and the instant accident is acknowledged.

C. Limitation on liability

Since 19 or more years have passed from the time of registration for the preservation of ○ apartment ○○ apartment, the superior officers in this case seem to have been a considerable aging phenomenon. Moreover, as seen earlier, it is difficult to transfer all responsibilities to the Defendant because the direct cause of the occurrence of the accident in this case is not clear, and even though it is not possible to deny the management obligation, visit and check each household in reality seems to be considerably difficult. In light of the fact that the instant liability for damages is recognized, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability from the perspective of equity to 50% in view of the fact that the burden would eventually be transferred to the occupants of the instant apartment through the management fee, etc.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Determination as to the claim for property damage

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 8 through 19, the Plaintiff is recognized to have spent the total of KRW 18,572,50 as shown in the separate statement No. 2 of expenditure in the instant accident.

In this regard, the Defendant: (1) because the water leakage was cut off, the Defendant’s interior works including the ceiling construction are not limited to the extent of a new construction work, even though the Plaintiff’s interior works including the ceiling construction are excessive repair; and (2) Bedcing lease can be used again through washing, it cannot be deemed that all remaining values will not be deemed damage; and (3) the damage would not be expected that the water leakage of the ceiling would be damaged, and thus, this part of the damage could not be anticipated.

It argues that there is no liability for damages, and argues that there is no liability.

First, it is not easy for the Plaintiff to continue residing in a new state only after construction, because the water dyp, if the water dyp is changed and the water dyp is likely to cause severe malodors in the inner part of the dypoid and the remote area. In addition, it seems that there is no reason for the Plaintiff to demand excessive remuneration to the construction business operator in the course of requesting construction. Accordingly, interior works, including the dyp construction, are included in the scope of damage in proximate causal relation.

Next, we examine the point of (2). It is reasonable to view the amount equivalent to 80% of the purchase price as the existing value at the time of the accident in this case, considering the price, timing, etc. of each purchase.

Finally, I examine the point of (3). The family with a child can keep the brin for the education of the child sufficiently at the home with the child. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the brut damage was high or high, and therefore it cannot be deemed that it was an unexpected damage.

Therefore, the property damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate are 9,286,250 won ( = expenses 18,572,500 won paid by the Plaintiff x 50% of the limitation of liability).

B. Determination as to the claim of consolation money

The plaintiff asserts that the amount of mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff's family due to the accident of this case reaches KRW 8,00,000 when converting it into the amount.

It is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s mental suffering as 2,50,000 won in consideration of the circumstances that are highly probable to transfer the Plaintiff’s family life to the occupant, as well as the inconvenience that he/she has to live in a temporary place of residence during the repair period and the loss caused by the foundation of his/her family life. However, the infringement is not attributable to the Defendant’s active and active aspect of action that is derived from the Defendant’s passive and omitted aspect. However, it is difficult to deem that the external damages arising from repair and property damage most of the external damages were restored, and that there exist factors that may undermine the stability of family life. Ultimately, the amount of damages that the Defendant paid by the Defendant is reasonable to view as 2,50,000 won in compensation for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff’s family.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages calculated at each rate of KRW 11,786,250 ( = Property damages amounting to KRW 9,286,250 + 2,500 + 2,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at each of the rates of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until December 5, 2012, which is obvious from July 25, 2012, which is the day following the date the Plaintiff served a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Bargnmark