1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,448,862 against the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from March 22, 2018 to October 12, 2018, respectively.

Plaintiff

The gist of the claim is that the plaintiffs are co-owners of D apartment and E apartment units in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff apartment units"), and the defendant was a person who owned the above floor F of the plaintiff apartment units (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant apartment units").

On January 25, 2016, due to the leakage of pipelines inside the apartment of the defendant, water leakage occurred in the ceiling of the plaintiff's apartment room, living room, etc., and accordingly, the ceiling and walls of the plaintiff's apartment were damaged.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 31,069,803 for the repair cost of KRW 6,490,000 for accommodation cost of KRW 15,897,100) and damages for delay.

As a result of the appraiser G’s appraisal of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12, and the appraiser G’s appraisal of the defect repair cost, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the reply of the appraiser’s inquiry about the fact inquiry by the court, it can be recognized that the whole and part of the plaintiff’s apartment site located below the defendant’s apartment complex’s lower floor and the wall are flooded and damaged (hereinafter “instant defect”), and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

Since the leakage of pipelines inside the defendant apartment is a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, the defendant is the owner of the defendant apartment building who is a structure pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, and is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defect in this case

In light of the scope of liability for damages, the amount of the cost of repairing defects and the result of the appraisal of the limited appraiser G’s defect repair costs, and the purport of the appraiser’s reply to the fact inquiry by the court as to the fact inquiry, the costs incurred in repairing the Plaintiff’s apartment are deemed to have been 31,069,803.