(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.01.16 2014가단200314

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.01.16 2014가단200314

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the building No. 1001, Dong-dong 1, 1001 (attached Form 2.), the defendant is the owner of the same 1101 (attached Form 1. Display building) and the defendant is residing in the above floor of the plaintiff.

B. Since 2011, wood such as a living room and a window was planted on the part of the Plaintiff’s real estate, and fung generated myco in the wall.

(hereinafter referred to as "the number of pleadings of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . [The fact that no dispute is raised, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the damage caused by the water leakage in this case was caused by water leakage phenomenon caused by the defects in the defendant's real estate located on the upper part of the plaintiff's real estate. Thus, the defendant claims against the plaintiff that the amount equivalent to the interest on the deposit returned due to the termination of the lease contract, the amount equivalent to the interest on the deposit, the deposit money 20 million won was not owned by the commercial banks, the amount equivalent to the interest calculated due to the termination of the lease contract, the apartment management fees and repair expenses borne by the plaintiff due to the termination of the lease contract, and the defendant is obligated to perform the repair work to prevent water leakage in the apartment owned by the defendant. As the exercise of the right to claim the removal of interference based on the ownership, the defendant is obligated to perform the repair work to prevent water leakage in the apartment owned by the defendant. As such, it is insufficient to recognize that the water leakage in this case was caused by the defects in the defendant's apartment owned by the defendant. The response

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.14 2013가단122386

-대구지방법원 2019.10.23 2019나307391

-서울남부지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나11586

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단27958

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.12.03 2019가단227994