logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.03 2018나55739
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment Nos. 1301 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment Nos. 101”). The Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant Nos. 201 (hereinafter “instant 201”) located on the upper floor of the instant 101 on December 15, 2015.

B. On May 2016, a water leakage accident (hereinafter “water leakage accident”) occurred, following the balcony pipes of this case 101, which was destroyed by the water tank of this case, which was used in the Washington 201, due to the damage of the water tank of this case in the instant 201. As a result, the damage was inflicted on the water tank of this case 101, the floor, the wall, the wall, and the garment of the balcony, the garment of the balcony, and the garment of the garment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 10 (including each number), the appraisal result and supplementary appraisal result of the first instance court appraiser D, the fact inquiry result of the first instance court's appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Defect in the establishment or preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, which has the right to claim damages, means that the structure has no safety ordinarily to be equipped for its intended purpose;

In this context, the safety required to be installed is not only the safety of the structure itself, but also the safety required under the circumstances where the structure is installed and used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da227103, Aug. 29, 2017). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the water leakage accident in this case is deemed to have caused damage to pipes connecting the cryp sewage located in the section for exclusive use in this case, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

Therefore, the water leakage accident of this case is for the installation or preservation of No. 201.

arrow