1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Defendant is the owner of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu 401 (hereinafter “401”) and the Plaintiff is the husband of D who is the owner of the above C301 (hereinafter “301”) and both the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not reside in C.

B. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the cause of water leakage in the port of the 301 tenant of the 301 tenant of the dwelling room was the 401 tenant, and replaced it. The 301 tenant of the 301 tenant also confirmed that the problem of water leakage was resolved to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damage due to the defect in 401, the total of KRW 1,759,50 [the total of KRW 1,783,500 = the total of the expenses paid by the Plaintiff for the repair of defects or the removal of damage” [the construction cost claim = Fung removal, heating, distribution, and actual container work cost according to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

According to the plaintiff's assertion of transportation cost + 700,000 won ＋ 301 8- 301 to pay water.

According to the plaintiff's argument that 125,500 won per day + Pursuant to the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff himself/herself is a good, and as such, the occurrence of lost import damage equivalent to 100,000 won per day was occurred as he/she visited 8 times.

800,000 won + Part of the amount of damages corresponding to 301 tenants' accommodation expenses of 158,000) are claimed.

As to the legal basis for the plaintiff, not the owner or tenant of 301, who is the first 401 owner or tenant, seeking compensation for damages due to leakage to the defendant, the owner of 401, the plaintiff did not disclose it notwithstanding the name of this court, and thereafter, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone was caused due to defects of 401, and there is no other evidence, therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion.