1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the C Apartment 101 in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter "Plaintiff apartment"), and the defendant is the owner of the above apartment 201 (hereinafter "Defendant apartment").

B. From the end of February 2016, there was an accident that water flows out on the wall of the Plaintiff’s apartment site and the living room due to water leakage from the floor pipe of the Defendant’s apartment site (hereinafter “instant water leakage accident”). As a result, the wall of the Plaintiff’s apartment site and the living room were damaged.

C. On the other hand, on May 8, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s apartment to the lessee before setting the lease deposit of KRW 300 million, the term from May 10, 2012 to May 9, 2014. The said lease contract was renewed once until May 9, 2016.

Plaintiff

On June 10, 2016, the former lessee of an apartment was a director at a new residential area. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a new lessee for the Plaintiff’s apartment with a lease deposit of KRW 380 million and its term from June 23, 2016 to June 22, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the water leakage accident of this case occurred due to the leakage of the floor pipe of the apartment house of the defendant, and the defendant is the possessor and owner of the structure, and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the water leakage accident of this case pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the scope of liability for damages was damaged in the remote area of the Plaintiff’s apartment due to the water leakage accident in the instant case, and that the Defendant was obliged to compensate for the said amount since the cost of the distribution was required in KRW 920,000.

According to the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the plaintiff's repair work for the plaintiff's apartment complex on June 2016 is costed by 80,000 won and 2 booms.