1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,066,824 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from November 26, 2019 to March 26, 2020.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is the owner and resident of the building located in Ansan-gu C and D (hereinafter referred to as the “instant No. D,” and the Defendant is the owner and resident of the instant building E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

Around March 2018, damage was caused by water leakage in the instant subparagraph D. While the Defendant decreased due to the replacement of a water pipe in the front toilets in the toilets in the instant case, water leakage again occurred from December 2018 (hereinafter “water leakage in the instant case”) and water generated from the ceiling and wall in the instant subparagraph D and the wall.

The water leakage of this case is KRW 8,133,649 (including value-added tax) for the repair work cost incurred in the combination of the floor of the toilet of this case and the walls of this case, and the water leakage amount of the rooftop floor of this case, and the water leakage amount of this case was generated in order to recover from water leakage damage.

[Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 15, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraiser F's appraisal result (the plaintiff has continued to hold a rooftop cover work for 17 hours, and the plaintiff's rejection of the defendant, not the appraiser, is biased toward the defendant's smartphones in favor of the defendant, but the above evidence and evidence Nos. 13 and 14 are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Although the defendant asserts that the credibility of the appraisal result, such as the excessive leakage repair work cost appraised by the appraiser, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion on the whole of the arguments in this case).