2016Na84193 Compensation for damages

A

B

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gaso654358 Decided November 25, 2016

July 7, 2017

August 18, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 609,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 11, 2016 to August 18, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 5/6 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,67,912 won with 5% interest per annum from June 11, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the C Apartment 101 in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff apartment"), and the defendant is the owner of the above apartment 201 (hereinafter referred to as "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 “water leakage accident”). As a result, the remote area of the Plaintiff’s apartment site and the living room was damaged.

C. On the other hand, on May 8, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the Plaintiff’s apartment complex to the lessee before setting the lease deposit amount 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.

D. On June 10, 2016, the former lessee of the Plaintiff’s apartment was a director at a new residential area. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with a new lessee for the Plaintiff’s apartment in terms of KRW 380,00,000,000 for the lease deposit, from June 23, 2016 to June 6, 2018, with the duration of the lease contract from June 23, 2016 to June 22, 202. [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the water leakage accident of this case occurred due to the water leakage of the floor pipe of the apartment of the defendant, and the defendant, as the possessor and owner of the structure, is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the water leakage accident of this case pursuant to Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code.

B. Scope of liability for damages

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the above amount because the Plaintiff’s remote area was damaged by the water leakage accident of this case, and the Defendant spent 920,00 won for the above amount. According to each of the gromatic evidence No. 6 and 7, the Plaintiff’s repair work on the Plaintiff’s apartment among June 2016, 80,000 won and 70,000 won (the total amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 + 70,000,000 won were only 60,000 won for the instant remote area). However, considering that the Plaintiff’s construction work on the apartment site of this case was carried out at least 60,000 won, it was difficult to view that there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff’s construction work on the apartment site of this case would have been carried out on the part of the Defendant’s 1 or 28,000 won.

2) On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract of the former lessee due to the water leakage accident in this case. ① From June 11, 2016, the date following the former lessee’s directors, until June 23, 2016, Article 7-2 subparag. 21 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 14175, May 29, 2016) and Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27614, Nov. 29, 2016), the Defendant claimed that the lessee was liable to receive KRW 360,000,000 (=30,000,000,000,000,000) calculated at the rate of 160,000,000 won and KRW 360,000,000,000,000,00).

Therefore, after examining whether the former lessee had terminated the lease contract with the Plaintiff due to the water leakage accident in this case, the following circumstances, which were considered as a whole, i.e., (i) the floor pipelines of the Plaintiff’s apartment complex was anticipated to cause inconvenience to the lessee’s living due to the need for repair work due to water leakage; (ii) the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the new lessee in which the lease deposit was KRW 380 million; and (iii) the Plaintiff appears to have demanded the increase of the deposit between the former lessee and the former lessee within KRW 80 million; and (iv) the Plaintiff asserted that the former lessee had already terminated the lease contract on the grounds of water leakage accident after May 9, 2016, which is the expiration date of the renewed lease contract; however, the Plaintiff did not have any further evidence to prove that the former lessee had terminated the lease contract due to the lack of any further evidence to prove that the former lessee had already concluded the lease contract on May 2, 2016.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 609,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 11, 2016, which is the date when the judgment of the court is rendered, to August 18, 2017, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date when the plaintiff becomes fully paid.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Number of judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Gin-soo

For judge Lee Jin-hoon

(i) Article 7-2 (Restriction on Calculation Rate in the Case of Conversion into Monthly Rent)

Where all or part of the deposit is converted to a monthly rent, it shall not exceed the extent of monthly rent calculated by multiplying the amount to be converted by the lower of any of the following subparagraphs:

2. The ratio obtained by multiplying the standard interest rate publicly announced by the Bank of Korea by the multiple prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(ii) Article 9 (Calculation Rate in Cases of Conversion into Monthly Rent);

(2) "Multiples prescribed by Presidential Decree" in subparagraph 2 of Article 7-2 of the Act means four times.